43. Suffice it to observe that it is not a case of non-placement of relevant material before the Sanctioning Authority or non-consideration of any mateiral palced before it. The Sanctioning Authority is competent to wade through the entire material placed before it to form an opinion that no evidence, either direct or circumstantial, that could stand judicial scrutiny, is available on record. The Sanctioning authority was bound to abide by the observation made by this Court in its order dated 20th October, 2006, which had attained finality. It predicated that the Director General must take decision whether sanction under Section 197 of the Criminal Procedure Code is required or not, in case the concerned police officers were to be prosecuted. Further, that decision was to be taken after going through the charge-sheet, case diary and all relevant documents and materials collected during the course of investigation, after being satisfied that the investigation has been properly conducted, and would stand to judicial scrutiny and that there is all likelihood of the officers, who are charged of offence, being convicted. This is the test applied by the Sanctioning Authority, which is unexceptionable.

44. The argument of the petitioner is that it is not the job of the Sanctioning Authority to scrutinise the record to find out whether the trial would end in conviction of the public servant. The Sanctioning Authority has to see whether there is any tittle of material which “warrants trial” of the public servant by the Court taking cognisance of the offence. It is submitted that the statements of Dr. Mateen and Zaheer left nothing to imagination about the involvement of respondent Nos.11 to 14 and the charge-sheet presented by the investigating officer names them as accused in the commission of the alleged offence. There can be no debate that the Court can take cognizance of offence against the public servants which is in connection with the discharge of their official duty only upon grant of sanction by the Sanctioning Authority. The purpose of having such provision is to protect the honest and sincere Government servants who have acted in good faith in discharge of their official duty. Indeed, it cannot be used as a shield to protect dishonest Government servants. If the overwhelming material collected during investigation of the offence in question itself indicates that respondent Nos.11 to 14 were unconnected with the investigation of the main offence of bomb blast and had no role to play whatsoever after handing over custody of Khwaja Yunus to the investigating team, i.e., Powai Unit, merely because there is reference to their involvement by the so-called eye witnesses, who were incidentally arraigned as accused in the commission of the main offence of bomb blast, it may be legitimate for the Sanctioning Authority to protect the public servant, in this case police officials of some other unit, from being persecuted. If the Sanctioning Authority, on the strength of evidence collected during investigation is convinced that the public servant is likely to be persecuted, no fault can be found with the approach of the Sanctioning Authority in refusing to grant sanction to prosecute, so long as it is to protect the innocent, honest and sincere public servant. We are of the opinion that the decision of the Sanctioning Authority not to accord sanction to prosecute respondent Nos.11 to 14 is unexceptionable.

45. Wemay now turn to the challenge regarding non-grant of sanction to prosecute respondent Nos. 3, 9 and 10, respectively. Notably, respondent No.9 has expired during the pendency of this petition. As a result, the contest in this petition is about non-grant of sanction to prosecute respondent Nos. 3 and 10, respectively. There is no doubt that respondent Nos. 3, 9 and 10, at the relevant time, were attached to Powai Unit. The investigation of the main case was entrusted to Powai Unit. The Sanctioning Authority has gone by the evidenc

Click Here to Read the rest of this document