2014 Supreme(SC) 119

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA, KURIAN JOSEPH, JJ.
P. L. Tatwal – Appellants
Versus
State of Madhya Pradesh – Respondents
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 456 OF 2014 [Arising out of S.L.P.(Criminal) No. 9999/2011]
Decided On : 19-02-2014

Important Point
It is incumbent on the prosecution to prove that the valid sanction has been granted by the sanctioning authority after being satisfied that a case for sanction has been made out. The sanction order may expressly show that the sanctioning authority has perused the material placed before it and, after consideration of the circumstances, has granted sanction for prosecution.

Headnote:Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988- Sections 13(1)(d) and 13(2), 19(1)(c). -Prosecution of appellant along with two others under Section 13(1)(d) and 13(2)-Challenge there against - Grievance of appellant that since he was appointed in service by Administrator, sanction for prosecution could be given only by the Administrator and in case, the Administrator was not in position, then the sanction was to be given by State Government who appoints the Administrator-Held Administrator was only an ad hoc arrangement made by Government - It so happened that appointment of appellant was at a time when Municipal Corporation was ruled by Administrator- That did not mean that there should be an Administrator to take any decision with regard to the sanction for prosecution of the appellant under the PC Act-The Statute is very clear that the authority competent to remove an officer from service is the authority to give sanction for prosecution- In the case of appellant, being an employee having a salary of more than Rs.400/- per month, authority competent to remove him from service was the Standing Committee- It was the Standing Committee which gave the sanction by its order – Hence trial court and High Court could not be faulted in taking the view that there was an order of sanction for prosecution from the competent authority(paras8,9)

       Sanction for prosecution- The grant of sanction is only an administrative function- It is intended to protect public servants against frivolous and vexatious litigation- It also ensures that a dishonest officer is brought before law and is tried in accordance with law- Thus, it is a serious exercise of power by the competent authority- It has to be apprised of all the relevant materials, and on such materials, the authority has to take a conscious decision as to whether the facts would reveal the commission of an offence under the relevant provisions- No doubt, an elaborate discussion in that regard in the order is not necessary- But decision making on relevant materials should be reflected in the order and if not, it should be capable of proof before the court(para12)

       Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988- Sections 13(1)(d) and 13(2), 19(1)(c). -Prosecution of appellant along with two others under Section 13(1)(d) and 13(2)-Challenge there against- Grievance of appellant that there was no proper and valid sanction by competent authority-Though appellants made a specific objection in this regard before Special Judge, unfortunately in the order dated 27.12.2004, it was seen that there was no inquiry by the court in this regard- There was no reference at all to the recommendation made by the Municipal Commissioner- In such circumstances, held that trial court should conduct a proper inquiry as to whether all the relevant materials were placed before the competent authority and whether the competent authority had referred to the same so as to form an opinion as to whether the same constituted an offence requiring sanction for prosecution-In that view of the matter, impugned orders passed by High Court and trial court set aside and matter remitted back to Special Judge (paras15,16)

       Facts of the Case- A. Appellant along with two others was prosecuted herein in the instant case under Section 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Grievance of appellant was threefold;

       (i) Since he was appointed in service by the Administrator, sanction for prosecution can be given only by the Administrator and in case, the Administrator is not in position, then the sanction is to be given by the State Government who appoints the Administrator.

       (ii) At any rate, there is no proper and valid sanction by the competent authority.

       (ii) Since the proceedings for prosecution against his superior officers have been quashed by this Court, proceedings in his case also be quashed since it is not likely in such a situation to have a successful prosecution.

       Findings of the Court-

       A.The Court held that Administrator was only an ad hoc arrangement made by Government . It so happened that appointment of appellant was at a time when Municipal Corporation was ruled by Administrator. That did not mean that there should be an Administrator to take any decision with regard to the sanction for prosecution of the appellant under the PC Act. The Statute is very clear that the authority competent to remove an officer from service is the authority to give sanction for prosecution. In the case of appellant, being an employee having a salary of more than Rs.400/- per month, authority competent to remove him from service was the Standing Committee. It was the Standing Committee which gave the sanction by its order . Hence trial court and High Court could not be faulted in taking the view that there was an order of sanction for prosecution from the competent authority.

       B. Apart from that, held that trial court should conduct a proper inquiry as to whether all the relevant materials were placed before the competent authority and whether the competent authority had referred to the same so as to form an opinion as to whether the same constituted an offence requiring sanction for prosecution. In that view of the matter, impugned orders passed by High Court and trial court were set aside and matter was remitted back to Special Judge.