Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
SURAJ GOVINDARAJ
Virupakshappa Mallapa Pujar, S/O Mallappa Pujar – Appellant
Versus
Director Of Municipal Administration And Disciplinary Authority – Respondent
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 pe
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.
The validity of prosecution sanction must be evaluated at trial; minor irregularities do not nullify proceedings without evident failure of justice.
The court established that a writ petition challenging a prosecution sanction is non-maintainable post-cognizance, affirming that the sanctioning authority must apply its mind to relevant materials, ....
The challenge to the order of sanction on the ground of improper application of mind or non-consideration of relevant material is required to be raised during trial and established by leading evidenc....
Point of law : Sanctioning authority while granting sanction ought to have recorded their satisfaction that on what basis he arrived at the conclusion to grant sanction.
The sanctioning authority must provide reasons and demonstrate due application of mind when granting prosecution sanction under the Prevention of Corruption Act.
The Government cannot grant prosecution sanction based on the same material after initially declining it without fresh evidence.
A valid sanction under Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act requires independent application of mind by the sanctioning authority, and any failure to do so renders the sanction invalid.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
