SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2013 Supreme(SC) 504

Supreme Court of India
B.S. CHAUHAN & DIPAK MISRA, JJ.
State of Maharashtra Through C.B.I
Versus
Mahesh G. Jain
Criminal Appeal No. 2345 of 2009
Decided on : 28-05-2013

IMPORTANT POINT
Sanction under P.C. Act should be examined with a pedantic view and not a hyper technical view.

Headnote:(a) Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - Section 6(1) - Sanction - Grant of - Requirements of a valid sanction reiterated. (Para 13)

        AIR 1958 SC 124; AIR 1945 FC 18; AIR 1948 PC 84; AIR 1979 SC 677; (1995) 6 SCC 225; (2005) 4 SCC 81; (2006) 12 SCC 749; (2007) 11 SCC 273; (2011) 1 SCC 491 - Relied upon

        (b) Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - Section 6(1) - Sanction - Validity - Courts below considering the matter as if it were court of appeal over the competent authority - Taking hyper technical view - Not proper. (Para 16)

        (c) Administration of Justice - Judicial Review - Remitting the case to trial judge - Will entail another round of hearing which is avoidable - Remittance of case to trial court brings in procrastination - Such course nor appreciated - Cases should be remitted to trial court in very rare cases. (Para 19)

        AIR 1968 SC 1390;

       Facts of the case:

        The issue of sanction by competent authority for prosecution under P.C. Act is under consideration in this case.

        The Special Judge CBI acquitted the appellant from charges u/s 7, P.C. Act on the ground of defective sanction by competent authority.

        Appeal by CBI was also rejected by High Court on the same ground.

       Finding of the Court:

        The Courts below have erred in taking hyper technical view of the matter.

       Result : Appeal allowed.

       

Judgment :-

Dipak Misra, J.

The singular question that emanates for consideration in this appeal is whether the High Court of Judicature at Bombay in Criminal Application No. 2648 of 2007 is justified in refusing to grant leave to file an appeal by the Central Bureau of Investigation, Anti Corruption Branch, Mumbai (for short “the CBI”) to assail the judgment and order dated 8th September, 2006 in Special Case No. 62 of 2000 by the Court of Special Judge for Greater Bombay whereby the learned Special Judge had acquitted the respondent No. 1 under Sections 7, 13 (1) (d) read with 2 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (For brevity “the Act”) principally on the foundation that the sanction granted by the competent authority was defective and illegal as there was non-application of mind which would show lack of satisfaction.

2. At the very outset, it is condign to state that as we are only dealing with a singular issue it is not necessary to state the facts in detail. Suffice it to state one Satish P. Doshi, proprietor of Shree Travels, the complainant, had given his vehicles to State Bank of India on contract basis and was entitled to receive hire charges for his vehicles periodically. The complainant experienced certain difficulties in getting his cheques and Tax Deducted at Source certificates. When he approached the accused-respondent, he demanded illegal gratification which was not acceded to by the complainant. Despite consistent refusal by the complainant, the demand of the accused was persistent which constrained the complainant to approach the CBI with a written complaint. The CBI took up the investigation and the raiding party carried out a trap operation, seized the bribe amount of Rs.1000/-, sent the seized article to the CFSL, obtained the sanction order and ultimately on 5.10.2000 filed the charge-sheet before the learned Special Judge. After the trial was over the learned Special Judge adverted to all the issues and answered all of them in the affirmative against the accused but acquitted him solely on the base that the sanction order was defective and illegal and that went to the very root of jurisdiction of the court.

3. Grieved by the aforesaid judgment of acquittal, the CBI filed an application for grant of leave and the learned single Judge of the High Court of Bombay declined to grant leave on the ground that it was doubtful whether the sanctioning authority had, in fact, actually applied its mind while granting sanction. The High Court further opined that the view taken by the learned Special Judge in that regard was a plausible one being not contrary to material on record and hence, it did not require any interference.

4. We have heard Mr. Sidharth Luthra, learned Additional Solicitor General appearing for the appellant, and Mr. V.N. Bachawat, learned senior counsel appearing for the respondent.

5. Section 19(1) of the Act postulates that 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. The said provision enumerates about the competent authorities. In the case at hand, the competence of the authority who has granted sanction is not in question. The only aspect that is required to be scrutinized whether the order granting sanction is valid in law.

6. Grant of sanction is irrefragably a sacrosanct act and is intended to provide safeguard to public servant against frivolous and vexatious litigations. Satisfaction of the sanctioning authority is essential to validate an order granting sanction. This Court in Jaswant Singh v. State of Punjab [AIR 1958 SC 124] was considering the validity and effect of the sanction given under Section 6(1) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947. After referring to the decisions in Basdeo Agarwala v. Emperor [AIR 1945 FC 18] and Gokulchand Dwarkadas Morarka v. The King [AIR 1948 PC 84], the Court opined as follows: -

“It should be clear from the





































Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top