The Competent Authority cannot review its earlier decision to refuse sanction without fresh materials, and there is a distinction between absence of sanction and alleged invalidity on account of non-application of mind.

JUDGMENT :

CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.297 OF 2023

1. Since common issues are involved in the two Writ Petitions filed by the accused and in Criminal Revision Application No.297 of 2023 filed by the Central Bureau of Investigation (“CBI”, for short) these matters are being disposed of by a common judgment by consent of the parties. For convenience I have preferred to hear Criminal Revision Application No.297 of 2023 filed by the CBI in the first instance as the decision in this Criminal Revision Application will govern the fate of the other two writ petitions.

2. CBI impugns the order dated 26.09.2018 passed by the Special Judge for CBI, Mumbai (“Special Judge”, for short) thereby discharging the present respondent/original accused No.6-R. Bhuvaneswari w/o C.N. Venkataraman in CBI Special Case No.67 of 2013. The prosecution case in brief is as under :-

On 26.03.2009 CBI filed FIR bearing No.RC/8/E/2009/ CBI/BS&FC/Mumbai against M/s. Satav Infrastructure Private Limited (“SIPL”, for short) formerly known as Satav Construction Private Limited, Mahendra Satav, Anil M. Howale and other unknown persons for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 420, 467, 468, 471 read with 120-B of the Indian Penal Code and under Sections 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereafter “P.C. Act”, for short). The allegation against the accused persons in these matters is that they have conspired to cheat and defraud the Syndicate Bank, Shivaji Nagar Branch, Pune to the tune of Rs.54.68 crores during the year from 2004 to 2007 in respect of the cash credit account of SIPL as well as several sanctions and in respect of release of various credit facilities to the said company and thereby committed the aforesaid offences.

3. The respondent-R. Bhuvaneswari in the Criminal Revision Application at the relevant time was working as Senior Manager/Chief Manager, Syndicate Bank, Regional Office, Pune. The CBI conducted the investigation in the matter of SIPL and sought sanction of prosecution of the accused vide letter dated 20.10.2010 enclosing their report in support thereof from the Chief Vigilance Officer (“CVO”, for short) of the Syndicate Bank. Thereafter, the CVO referred the matter to the concerned Competent Authority through the Industrial Relation Division of the Bank. The Competent Authority of Bank duly examined the request of CBI with the report of CBI. The Competent Authority i.e. the General Manager Personnel after duly examining the report of CBI and the materials placed before it, concluded about non-existence of any criminal conspiracy, refused to grant sanction for prosecution of the accused. The CVO, who is the complainant in this case, after going through the note dated 10.01.2011 concurred with the opinion of the Competent Authority and forwarded the same to CBI. By a communication dated 13.01.2011 the bank communicated refusal of sanction to prosecute the accused to Central Vigilance Commission (“CVC”, for short).

4. It appears that again a request for sanction was made and by a letter dated 28.10.2011 the bank informed the CVC that the sanction to prosecute the accused was refused. Another attempt was made for seeking sanction. The Competent Authority for the third time refused to grant sanction to prosecute the accused involved in the present matters.

5. It is pertinent to mention that despite the refusal of the sanction for a third time, the CBI persisted with the Competent Authority for granting the permission to prosecute the accused. At the result of such insistence, even after refusal of the sanction three times over, the Chairman of Syndicate Bank referred the matter to the Department of Financial Services (Vigilance), Ministry of Finance. The Ministry of Financial Services replied that the request to accord sanction for prosecution of the applicant-accused be granted. Hence the prosecution.

6. An application Exhibit-47 came to be filed by the accused-R. Bhuvaneswari for discharge. For the reasons