1. Issuance of sanction order dt.05.02.2006 by the Vice-Chancellor, Acharya Nagarjuna University, Nagarjuna Nagar, Andhra Pradesh, India, led to filing of present Criminal Petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short “Cr.P.C.”) seeking to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.28 of 2007 on the file of the Special Judge for SPE & ACB Cases, Vijayawada on the ground that taking cognizance of the matter on the basis of invalid sanction is bad in law.

2. The facts in a nutshell are as under :

The petitioner/accused, who was working as Junior Assistant in the Nagarjuna University is alleged to have demanded a sum of Rs.1,000/- from a student as illegal gratification for issuance of a revised marks list. As LW.1 was not willing to pay any bribe, he submitted a report on 10.11.2005 with LW.9, Inspector of ACB for taking suitable action against A1. After receiving the said report, LW.9 endorsed the same to LW.7, who after conducting field enquiry, after taking permission from the higher authorities, registered a case in Cr.No.23/ACB-RCT-VJA/2005 under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (“for short P.C. Act”). Thereafter on 15.11.2005 the accused officer was successfully trapped when he demanded and accepted a sum of Rs.1,000/- from LW.1 as illegal gratification other than legal remuneration for issuing a fresh marks list of III Semester-November, 2004 to LW.1. After obtaining sanction from the Vice Chancellor, who is the competent authority to remove the accused from service, the Inspector of ACB filed the charge sheet.

3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Special Public Prosecutor and Standing Counsel for ACB.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner mainly submits that Vice-Chancellor by himself is not a competent authority to accord sanction for prosecuting the petitioner. Relying on Section 19(7) of the Andhra Pradesh Universities Act, 1991, he contends that it is only the Board of Management, which shall have the power to appoint, dismiss, remove or suspend any member of non-teaching staff of the University and as such the Vice Chancellor cannot claim himself to be the person authorized to remove the accused. He would further contend that the sanction order does not even say that the Vice Chancellor was authorized by the Board/Council to accord sanction for prosecution. Thus, according to him, continuation of proceedings on the basis of sanction order, which is not in accordance with law, amounts to an abuse of process of law and seeks quashing of the said proceedings.

5. On the other hand, the learned Standing Counsel for ACB would submit that there is no illegality in the sanction accorded by the Vice Chancellor and the said order was subsequently ratified by the Board/Council. He would further submit that the sanction order came to be passed after application of mind to the facts of the case. In view of Section 19(3) of the Act, no prejudice would be caused to the accused if the prosecution proceeds with the trial as it cannot be said that failure of justice has occasioned thereby.

6. Before proceeding further, it would be relevant to refer to Sections 19 (1) (a), 19(3) and 19(4) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

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 person who is employed in connection with the affairs of the Union and is not removable from his office save by or with the sanction of the Central Government, of that Government.

(b) --

(c) --

(2) --

(3) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974),–

(a) no finding, sentence or order passed by a Special Judge shall be reversed or altered by a Court in appeal, confirmation or revision on the ground of the absence of, or any error, omission o