The validity of the sanction to prosecute under the Prevention of Corruption act, 1988 depends on the application of mind by the sanctioning authority and their full knowledge of the material facts of the case.

JUDGMENT

H.P. Sandesh, J. - This criminal revision petition is filed praying this Court to set aside the order dated 05.04.2011 passed by the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru Rural District in Special Case No.21/2008 and direct the Trial Court to proceed with the trial in accordance with law.

2. The factual matrix of the case is that Karnataka Lokayuktha police have submitted a charge-sheet against the respondent-accused for the offences punishable under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) and Section 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption act, 1988. The allegation against the respondent-accused is that, he being a Public Servant working as Junior Town Planner in the office of the Bangalore International airport Development authority, has demanded a sum of Rs.3,50,000/- for issuing No Objection Certificate for conversion of certain lands situated in Kannamangala and Poojenahalli Villages in Devanahalli Taluk and he was caught red-handed while demanding and accepting the bribe amount from the complainant on 15.09.2006 and the tainted currency notes were also recovered from the possession of the accused.

3. The respondent-accused has filed an application under Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption act, 1988 read with Section 239 of Cr.P.C. praying the Trial Court to discharge him on the ground that there is no valid sanction to prosecute as contemplated under Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption act, 1988. It is also contended that, while according sanction, the sanctioning authority has not applied the mind and order of sanction granted by the Hon'ble Chief Minister is not an order in the eye of law and the same is not in conformity with Section 19 of the act and the same has been resisted by the petitioner by filing objections and the very validity of the sanction has been challenged and in that regard, P.W.1 has been examined before the Trial Court and the sanction order is also marked as Ex.P1. The respondent-accused, opposing the detailed objection contended that, sanction has been granted after perusing the material on record. The Trial Court, considering the contentions of the respective parties, allowed the application and discharged the respondent-accused and liberty is given to the petitioner-complainant to initiate fresh proceedings, after obtaining valid sanction, keeping in mind the observations made in the order. Being aggrieved by the order of allowing the application and discharge, the present revision petition is filed.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would vehemently contend that the Director General of Police, Karnataka Lokayuktha Police forwarded the entire case file along with covering letter to the Urban Development Department requesting for according sanction to prosecute the accused. The Sub-ordinate staff prepared the notes and placed the same before the Hon'ble Chief Minister, who during the relevant time was holding the Portfolio of Urban Development. The Hon'ble Chief Minister affixed his signature on the note sheets and thereafter, proceedings was initiated. It is also contended that the material was also placed before the Under Secretary and thereafter, the same was authenticated by P.W.1 and sanction order is also issued in accordance with the transaction of business rules and Ex.P1-sanctiion order clearly disclose that, all the material aspects were considered. The counsel would also submit that, P.W.1 in his evidence has narrated regarding issuance of sanction and requirement of sanction under Section 19(1) of the Prevention of Corruption act is a matter of procedure and the same does not go to the root of the jurisdiction. The very reasoning given by the Trial Court that no valid sanction is an erroneous order and the sanction order disclose the facts that there had been application of mind and the material on record had been examined by the sanctioning authority, before according sanction. Hence, it requires interference of this Court.

5. The counsel, in support of his argument, relied