IMPORTANT POINTS
Acts similar to Orissa Special Courts Act, 2006 and the Bihar Special Courts Act, 2009 are valid.
Order granting sanction need not be speaking one.

JUDGMENT :

Dipak Misra, J.

In this appeal, by special leave, the appellant has called in question the legal propriety of the order dated 25.07.2014 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur, Gwalior Bench in M.Cr.C. No. 4277 of 2014 whereby the High Court has declined to interfere in the petition preferred under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, "the CrPC") wherein the grant of sanction was called in question.

2. The facts, in a nutshell, are that the appellant was a Manager of the Primary Agriculture Credit Co-operative Society, Village Pipraua, District Gwalior. On the basis of allegations made, a case under Section 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short, "the 1988 Act") was registered against him. After investigation it was found that he had secured assets and property of Rs. 1,05,44,604/- and, accordingly, sanction was sought to launch prosecution against him, and it was granted. As the factual matrix would reveal, the trial court proceeded and charges were framed against him. The order of framing the charge was assailed in a Writ Petition which stood dismissed.

3. In the petition under Section 482 CrPC it was contended before the High Court that the sanction to prosecute the accused had not been granted in accordance with law as there had been no application of mind. The High Court, after hearing the learned counsel for the parties, has held as under:-

"We have perused the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and facts and evidence on record of the case. In our opinion, the sanctioning authority has considered all the facts of the case. There is prima facie evidence against the petitioner in regard to acquiring property and assets in excess to his known source of income. In granting sanction to prosecute under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 it is not necessary for the authority to pass a detailed reasoned judgment and order. The authority has to apply its mind. Even otherwise, there is sufficient evidence prime facie to prosecute the petitioner."

4. In this appeal on a perusal of the grounds, we find that there are numerous reference to M.P. Vishesh Nyayalaya Adiniya, 2011. The constitutionality of the said Act was not questioned before the High Court as it could not have been questioned under Section 482 Cr.P.C. However, we may note that almost similar Acts, namely, the Orissa Special Courts Act, 2006 and the Bihar Special Courts Act, 2009, have been treated to be valid by this Court in Civil Appeal Nos. 6448-6452 of 2011 titled Yogendra Kumar Jaiswal Etc. v. State of Bihar & Ors.

5. It is contended that the grant of sanction is not an empty formality and there has to be application of mind in support of the said sanction. We have been commended to Mansukhlal Vithaldas Chauhan v. State of Gujarat, (1997) 7 SCC 622 wherein a two-Judge Bench while dealing with grant of sanction has observed:-

"18. The validity of the sanction would, therefore, depend upon the material placed before the sanctioning authority and the fact that all the relevant facts, material and evidence have been considered by the sanctioning authority. Consideration implies application of mind. The order of sanction must ex facie disclose that the sanctioning authority had considered the evidence and other material placed before it. This fact can also be established by extrinsic evidence by placing the relevant files before the Court to show that all relevant facts were considered by the sanctioning authority. (See also Jaswant Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 1958 SC 124, and State of Bihar v. P.P. Sharma, 1991(2) S.C.T. 397 : 1992 Supp. (1) SCC 222.)

19. Since the validity of "sanction" depends on the applicability of mind by the sanctioning authority to the facts of the case as also the material and evidence collected during investigation, it necessarily follows that the sanctioning authority has to apply its own independent mind for the generation of genuine satisfactio