Back
2023 Supreme(Ker) 1047
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
KAUSER EDAPPAGATH, J.
K. Sasi – Petitioner
Versus
State of Kerala – Respondent
WP (Crl.) No. 181 of 2023
Decided On : 27-02-2023
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: M.R. Sarin
For the Respondent: A. Rajesh
Headnote:(A) Prevention of Corruption Act - Section 19 - Challenge to sanction for prosecution - The sanction order issued contained a typographical error regarding the petitioner's designation, but this alone does not invalidate the order - Application of mind by the sanctioning authority cannot be questioned in a writ petition, and should instead be addressed at trial. (Paras 1, 7, 8)
(B) Writ Jurisdiction - The scope of a writ petition does not extend to questioning the merits of the sanction order on the grounds of the authority's due diligence in decision-making. (Paras 7, 8)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner, an accused in a corruption case, challenges the sanction for prosecution granted under the Prevention of Corruption Act, claiming a typographical error in his designation invalidated the sanction. The prosecution alleges he amassed disproportionate wealth while serving as Inspector of Factories and Boilers.
Findings of Court:
The court found no merit in the challenge to the writ petition, stating typographical errors do not invalidate the sanction, and issues regarding the sanctioning authority's consideration must be addressed in the trial.
Issues: The court addressed whether the typographical error in the designation invalidates the sanction, and whether the application of mind by the sanctioning authority could be questioned in a writ petition.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that minor typographical errors do not invalidate prosecution sanctions, and matters regarding the application of mind by the sanctioning authority should be resolved during the trial, not through writ petitions.
Result: Writ Petition dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
KAUSER EDAPPAGATH, J.
1. This Writ Petition (Crl.) has been filed challenging Ext.P2 sanction for the prosecution granted by the 4th respondent under Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act (for short `the P.C. Act').
2. The petitioner is the sole accused in V.C. No. 6/2015/SCE of the Vigilance and Anti Corruption Special Cell Bureau, Ernakulam, now pending as C.C. No. 4 of 2020 on the files of the Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge (Vigilance), Thrissur.
3. The offences alleged against the petitioner are punishable under Sections 13(2) r/w 13(1) of the P.C. Act.
4. The prosecution case in short is that the petitioner while working as Government Servant as Inspector of Factories and Boilers at Thrissur, during the period from 01.01.2004 to 28.02.2015 has amassed wealth to the tune of Rs.82,81,561/- which was disproportionate to his known source of income and thus committed the offence.
5. The 4th respondent issued Ext.P2 sanction order to prosecute the petitioner invoking Section 19(1)(b) of the P.C Act. It is challenging the said sanction order, this Crl. M.C. has been filed.
6. I have heard Sri. Sarin Panicker, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri.A.Rajesh, the learned Special Public Prosecutor.
7. The petitioner challenges Ext.P2 sanction order mainly on two grounds:
(i) In the sanction order, designation of the petitioner has been wrongly shown as the `Additional Director' in Factories and Boilers instead of the `Joint Director'.
(ii) The 4th respondent did not apply his mind while granting sanction.
8. It is true that instead of the Joint Director, the designation of the petitioner has been shown as the Additional Director. It appears to be a typographical error. All the other details of the petitioner are correct. For the simple reason that there is a typographical error in showing the designation of the petitioner, it cannot be said that the sanction issued is bad. The question whether the sanctioning authority has applied his mind or not, is something which cannot be agitated in a writ petition. If the petitioner has got a case that the sanctioning authority accorded sanction without applying his mind, the petitioner can very well cross-examine the sanctioning authority when he will be examined during trial.
9. I find no merit in the Writ Petition (Crl.) and accordingly, it is dismissed.
