The court emphasized the need for fair and independent consideration by the sanctioning authority and held that the trial court's directions eroded the discretion of the sanctioning authority and exceeded the court's jurisdiction.

1. The only question involved in this petition under Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure is the ambit and scope of the criminal court exercising jurisdiction under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 2006 to take cognizance of the offence against a person who has not been sent up for trial by the prosecution and the court cannot proceed against him for want of sanction to his prosecution. The question has arisen because the Special Judge Anti Corruption, Kashmir vide order dated: 30.03.2000 directed the prosecution to place the material identified by it before the authority competent to grant sanction for prosecution under Section 6 of the Act and inform the court of the decision of the said authority.

2. The prosecution admittedly placed the order of the court before the Chief Minister who directed the Vigilance Organisation to re-examine the entire case with special reference to the involvement of Shri G.M.Wani, the then Deputy Commissioner. After the court was informed about the steps taken by the competent authority to comply the direction the learned Special Judge passed another order dated: 02.08.2000 which is impugned in this petition on the ground that the trial court has made certain disparaging remarks which were not justified in the facts and circumstances of the case.

3. The contention of Mr.Ishtiaq Hussain, Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is that the trial court has wrongly interpreted the expression "re-examination" of the case as a direction for re-investigate. The re-examination of the case according to the learned counsel has been directed only with reference to Shri G.M.Wani pursuant to the direction of the court. He produced the file in which Chief Minister has observed that "the verdict of special Judge should not be dismissed so lightly". This observation was made because Vigilance Organisation had reiterated its earlier view that no case is made out against Shri G.M.Wani.

4. The Special Judge while directing the Commissioner of Vigilance to place the matter before the competent authority for grant of sanction for prosecution of Shri G.M. Wani vide order dated:30.03.2000 observed as under:-

".....The material collected by the investigating agency itself prima-facie discloses involvement of G.M.Wani, the then Dy.Commissioner, Anantnag in the alleged conspiracy and commission of offence punishable under Section 5(1) c & d read with Section 5(2) P.C.Act, 2006, 167-A, 467, 468, 471, 201 read with 120-B RPC. The material on the file thus is sufficient to prompt the court to take cognizance of the aforesaid offence against the accused under Section 190 Cr.P.C. Such a course, however, is not open because of absence of sanction under Section 6 of P.C.Act, 2000 by the competent authority, to prosecute the accused, who continue to be a government servant. This, however, may temporarily stall but must not thwart the course of justice. Accordingly Commissioner of Vigilance is directed to place relevant record collected during investigation pertaining to Mr. G. M. Wani the then Dy.Commissioner, Anantnag, not latter than fifteen days from the date of this order before the competent authority and the authority shall consider grant of sanction for prosecution of the accused in terms of Section 6 P.C.Act, 2006 and in any case take its decision on the subject within one month from the date of this order so that the trial which already stands delayed commence with proper despatch."

5. The learned Special Judge it appears expressed too much and left too little for the authority competent to accord sanction. The better course for him would have been only to identify the material about the involvement of Sh.G.M. Wani and direct its consideration by the authority competent under Section 6 of the Act. This is because in Mansukhlal Vithaldas Chouhan vs State of Gujrat AIR 1997 SC 3400 it has been held that:-

"19. Since the validity of "sanction" depends on the applicability of mind by the sanctioning authority to

Click Here to Read the rest of this document