JUDGMENT :

Application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act:

1. For the reasons stated in the application and taking into consideration the short period of delay of 8 days in filing the present appeal, the delay in filing the appeal is condoned.

2. The application for condonation of delay is allowed accordingly.

D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 1262/2024:

1. Heard.

2. The order passed by the learned Single Judge dismissing the writ petition and the order granting sanction is challenged mainly on the ground that the opinion formed while granting sanction is mechanical and there is no due application of mind.

3. We find that the sanctioning authority, after taking into consideration the nature of allegations, has examined the material placed on record before it on the relevant aspects relating to demand, acceptance and recovery. More than that, the transcript of conversation has also been taken into consideration.

4. The submission of learned counsel for the appellant is that the officer of ACB, who presented the records before the sanctioning authority claiming himself to be the Investigating Officer, is factually incorrect, which fact has been clearly admitted by the prosecution during trial.

5. We find that the order passed by the competent authority while granting sanction has not only placed on record and noticed the nature of allegations of fact alleged against the appellant, but also taken into consideration the material on the basis of which allegations are sought to be substantiated during trial.

6. It is well known that demand, acceptance and recovery are three important ingredients to make out a case. Irrespective of whether the material with regard to demand, acceptance and recovery is liable to be believed or not, we are of the view that the sanctioning authority has applied its mind, may be briefly, to come to the conclusion that present is a fit case for grant of sanction for prosecution. We also find from the material on record that the case of prosecution rests on certain transcripts of voice recording between the intermediary and the officer. The order impugned refers to that also. We would not comment upon the whether the material is worth acceptance at this stage because at the stage of considering material to decide whether or not sanction is to be granted, a prima facie view on the availability of the incriminating material collected during trap is to be seen. Whether or not the same is to be relied upon is a matter of trial. That cannot be a ground to assail the correctness and validity of order of sanction.

7. The scope of judicial review in the matter of grant of sanction has been explained by Hon’ble Supreme Court in plethora of decisions. We may usefully refer to the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Mansukhlal Vithaldas Chauhan Vs. State of Gujarat [(1997) 7 SCC 622], wherein it was held thus:

“25. This principle was reiterated in Tata Cellular vs. Union of India, AIR 1966 SC 11 : (1994) 6 SCC 651, in which it was, inter alia, laid down that the Court does not sit as a Court of Appeal but merely reviews the manner in which the decision was made particularly as the Court does not have the expertise to correct the administrative decision. If a review of the administrative decision is permitted, it will be substituting its own decision which itself may be fallible. The Court pointed out that they duty of the Court is to confine itself to the question of legality. Its concern should be

1. Whether a decision-making authority exceeded its powers?

2. committed an error of law;

3. committed, a breach of the rules of natural justice;

4. reached a decision which no reasonable Tribunal would have reached; or

5. abused its powers.

26. xxx

27. xxx

28. In Sterling Computers Ltd. vs. M/s M&N Publications Ltd. and others, AIR 1966 SC 51 : (1993) 1 SCR 81 : (1993) 1 SCC 445, it was pointed out that while exercising the power of judicial review, the Court is concerned primarily as to whether there has been any infirmity in the dec