IMPORTANT POINT
Grant or refusal of sanction for prosecution is not an empty formality – Act of according sanction for prosecution must be preceded by proper application of mind by competent authority.

JUDGMENT

Chillakur Sumalatha, J.—Challenge in this Criminal Revision Case is the order that is rendered by the Court of Principal Special Judge for trial of SPE and ACB Cases, Hyderabad in Crl.M.P.No.165 of 2015 in C.C.No.8 of 2014 dated 18.10.2021.

2. The petitioner is arrayed as accused in C.C.No.8 of 2014 wherein proceedings in the said Calendar Case were initiated basing on the allegation that he committed offences punishable under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. On taking cognizance of the offences against him by the Special Court, the petitioner moved an application for discharge. The said application vide Crl.M.P.No.165 of 2015 stood dismissed through order dated 18.10.2021. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner preferred the present Criminal Revision Case.

3. Heard the submission of Sri Badeti Venkataratnam, the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel-cum-Special Public Prosecutor for ACB.

4. The case of the prosecution in capsule is that the sister of the defacto complainant applied for water connection for her house and in that regard, for processing the application filed by her, the petitioner/accused, who was working as Work Inspector by then, demanded a sum of Rs.14,000/-, inclusive of taking a Demand Draft in favour of Water Board, towards fee payable for water connection. On request, the petitioner/accused reduced the amount from Rs.14,000/- to Rs.10,000/-. He informed that a Demand Draft has to be taken for Rs.6,538/- for sanction of water connection and that the remaining amount would be taken by him as bribe. On further request, the bribe amount was reduced to Rs.2,000/- and a sum of Rs.6,600/- was ordered to be paid for Demand Draft including Demand Draft making charges. On a complaint given, a trap was laid.

5. The main grievance that is exhibited by the petitioner/accused is that the prosecution initiated against him is basing on the sanction order which was issued by the Managing Director, Hyderabad Metro Water Supply and Sewerage Board, Hyderabad (for brevity “HMWS&SB”) dated 21.4.2014. But, two months prior to the issuance of the said proceedings, the Government issued proceedings dated 24.02.2014 deciding to initiate departmental enquiry instead of prosecution against him and therefore, the subsequent sanction proceedings dated 21.4.2014 for prosecution against him is bad in law. Thus, the limited question involved in this Criminal Revision Case is:

Whether the proceedings issued by the Managing Director, HMWS&SB, Hyderabad, vide proceedings No.9138/B3/2010, dated 21.4.2014, wherein and whereby sanction was accorded for prosecution of the petitioner/accused, is valid in the eye of law.

6. It is not in dispute that the respondent/complainant initiated prosecution against the petitioner/accused by pressing the charge sheet into service that he committed offences punishable under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 on the basis of the sanction order, vide proceedings No.9138/B3/2010, dated 21.4.2014 that was issued by the Managing Director, MHWS&SB, Hyderabad.

7. The whole contention of the petitioner/accused is that two months prior to the issuance of the above referred proceedings, the Government of A.P., Municipal Administration and Urban Development Department issued proceedings dated 24.02.2014 deciding to initiate departmental enquiry instead of prosecution against him and therefore, the subsequent proceedings issued for prosecution is bad in law. In this regard, the learned counsel for the petitioner/ accused submitted that the set of facts that were taken into consideration for issuance of the proceedings dated 24.02.2014, whereby a decision was taken to initiate departmental enquiry instead of prosecution against the petitioner/accused and the facts and circumstances basing on which subsequent proceedings dated 21.4.2014 were issued for prosecution of the