The court held that while it can review sanctions for prosecution under the Prevention of Corruption Act, disputed facts must be resolved in criminal court, not through writ jurisdiction.

ORDER :

SURAJ GOVINDARAJ, J.

1. The petitioner is before this Court seeking for the following reliefs :

i) Issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ order, direction, quashing the impugned order of sanction bearing No.837349/DMA/ENQ2/BGM/17/2022 dated 20.07.2024 issued by the respondent in so far as it relates to the petitioner as at Annexure-A and

ii) GRANT such other relief or reliefs as may deem fit to grant in the facts and circumstances of the case, in the ends of justice.

2. Essentially, what has been challenged by the petitioner is the grant of sanction by respondent No.1 for criminal prosecution of the petitioner for offences under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

3. The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that there is an improper application of mind by the Sanctioning Authority inasmuch as the relevant factors have not been taken into account, more particularly, that the amount was not recovered in the trap from the petitioner but was recovered from someone else. There are contradictions in the mahazar, which is apparent from a reading of the mahazar, inasmuch as at one place it is indicated that when the right hand of the petitioner had been immersed in sodium carbonate solution, the solution turned pink. At another place, it is stated that when the left hand was immersed in a sodium carbonate solution, the solution turned pink, whereas when the right hand was immersed in the same solution, the solution did not turn pink.

4. Further contention has been raised that the amount due on the bills having already been paid to the complainant on 14.07.2022, the question of a complaint being filed on 19.07.2022 alleging that there was a demand made cannot be acceptable, and in this regard, the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that there is no application of mind. As such, a sanction could not have been accorded to the petitioner.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner relies on the decision of a co-ordinate bench of this Court in the case of AMEER JAN VS STATE reported in ILR 2001 KAR 371, more particularly, para Nos.9 and 10 thereon, which are reproduced hereunder for easy reference.

"9. It is a pre-requisite of law under the Prevention of Corruption Act that the sanctioning Authority namely the State Government or its designated officer has to examine the case and decide as to whether a prosecution should be sanctioned. The reason for this is because there may be instances where a prosecution is unjustified and in the decision reported in O.S.SHARMA vs STATE OF MAHARASTRA. I have, as early as in 1993 laid down that where the incident is a petty one and where it is a single isolated instance a prosecution would be unjustified because the Government has the power to impose sufficiently seriously penalties through a disciplinary proceeding. Not only would this result in speedy punishment but more importantly, the special Courts which are today hopelessly overburdened with the number of petty cases would then be able to concentrate on rendering speedy justice by hearing and disposing of the bigger and more important cases. This is one of the primary functions of the sanctioning Authority which has been totally and completely overlooked. The department shall take note of this and shall bring it to the notice of each of the sanctioning authorities and place the observations of this Court before the concerned officer in every case.

10. With monotonous regularity, the present case included the function of examining as to whether sanction should be accorded or not is being dealt with in the most routine, cavalier and irresponsible manner. Where the sanctioning Authority does not examine the record and where the sanctioning Authority does not apply its mind and furthermore, where the sanction order itself is defective the entire prosecution gets vitiated. The present case is a classic instance where the evidence has conclusively established the charges but where the e