IMPORTANT POINT
Power to review sanction is not unbridled.

JUDGMENT

R.M. Lodha, J. —

Leave granted.

2. The question raised in this appeal, by special leave, is as regards the extent of power vested in the Government in reviewing its order granting or refusing sanction to prosecute the public servant in terms of Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short, ‘the 1988 Act’).

3. Nishant Sareen—the respondent—was posted as Drug Inspector, Bilaspur (Himachal Pradesh) in 2005. One, Dr. Ramdhan Sharma, owner of Leelawati Hospital, Ghumarwin lodged a complaint against the respondent in the Vigilance Department of the State Government that the respondent had demanded Rs. 5,000/- from him as bribe to allow him to run the said hospital without checking by the Drug Inspector. Based on the said complaint, a first information report (being No. 1/2005) was registered under Sections 7 and 13 (2) of the 1988 Act at Police Station AC Zone, Bilaspur. Thereafter, a raiding party under the supervision of Deputy Superintendent of Police, AC Zone, Bilaspur was constituted and a trap was laid on May 12, 2005. The respondent is said to have been caught red-handed on that day accepting the bribe from the complainant. The respondent was arrested and produced before the Additional Sessions Judge, Ghumarwin and was remanded to judicial custody upto May 16, 2005. The respondent was released on bail later on. Upon completion of investigation, the Vigilance Department sought for sanction under Section 19 of the 1988 Act from the Government to prosecute the respondent. It is not in dispute that the Principal Secretary (Health), Government of Himachal Pradesh is the competent authority authorized under the Rules of Business for according sanction in the matter.

4. The Principal Secretary (Health), on the basis of the material placed before her and on examination of the case, found no justification in granting sanction to prosecute the respondent. In the order dated November 27, 2007 whereby sanction was refused, it was observed as under :

“Therefore, after thorough examination of the case taking all the aspects into consideration and scrutiny of the service records it has been concluded that Sh. Sareen in the course of his duties and responsibilities and impartial discharge of his duties (sic). It appears that the complainant has registered a case which appears to be frivolous and has resulted in unnecessary harassment and hindrance in the working of the Drug Inspector. In view of this, there appears to be no justification for launching prosecution against Sh. Nishant Sareen, Drug Inspector as it appears to be a case of Personal enmity.”

5. It appears that the Vigilance Department took up the matter again with the Principal Secretary (Health) for grant of sanction as in their opinion sufficient evidence existed to prosecute the respondent.

6. The competent authority, thus, reconsidered the matter and granted sanction to prosecute the respondent vide its order dated March 15, 2008. In the sanction order dated March 15, 2008, it was observed thus:

“I agree with the contention of the Vigilance Department that in evaluating the evidence of criminal misconduct, his general conduct and behaviour as perceived by his superiors cannot secure precedence. I have been through the case file and facts of the case in detail. I find that the said Drug Inspector. Sh. Nishant Sareen has been caught red handed, with a bribe of Rs. 5000/-. There is nothing on record to show that this incident did not occur. The facts do not support the contention that Sh. Nishant Sareen was falsely implicated. In the circumstances, I am of the opinion that the prosecution sanction be granted in the instant case and accordingly do so.”

7. Section 19 of the 1988 Act reads as follows :

“S. 19. Previous sanction necessary for prosecution.-

(1) No court shall take cognizance of an offence punishable under sections 7, 10, 11, 13 and 15 alleged to have been committed by a public servant, except with the previous sanction,—

(a) in the case of a pe