The main legal point established in the judgment is that the competent authority must consider fresh materials and apply independent mind in granting sanctions for prosecution, in accordance with statutory provisions.

JUDGMENT :

Heard Mr. Indrajit Sinha, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. Anil Kumar, learned A.S.G.I. appearing for the CBI.

2. This petition has been filed for quashing of the entire criminal proceeding including the order taking cognizance dated 19.08.2020, by which, cognizance for the offence under Section 109 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 13(2) read with 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act has been taken against the petitioner, in connection with RC 17(A)/2016-R, CBI/ACB/Ranchi, pending in the court of learned Special Judge, CBI, Ranchi.

3. The prosecution case in brief is that one Ashutosh Kumar, who was working as Deputy General Manager, MSME Tool Room, Jamshedpur (Indo Danish Tool Room), Ministry of Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises, Government of India had acquired pecuniary resources and property disproportionate to his known source of income to the tune of Rs. 1,40,37,414/-during the check period 01.04.2007 to 23.09.2016 which cannot be satisfactory accounted for by the accused persons.

4. Mr. Indrajit Sinha, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the investigating officer has submitted the chargesheet dated 31.12.2019 against the petitioner and other co-accused persons for the offence under Section 109 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 13(2) read with 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. He submits that the cognizance has also been taken against the petitioner on 19.08.2020. He further submits that the petitioner was posted as Deputy General Manager, Indo Danish Tool Room, Jamshedpur at the time of registration of first information report. He also submits that the sanction was refused by the competent authority under Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, which has come into the knowledge of the petitioner pursuant to a petition filed by the petitioner under the provisions of Right to Information Act, 2005 contained in Annexure-3 series. He further submits that by the said RTI application, the earlier order of refusal of sanction was demanded, however, that has not been provided to him. He further submits that when the competent authority has been changed and on the displeasure shown by the Director, Chief Vigilance Commissioner, vide letter dated 28.05.2020, the new incumbent authority sanctioned the prosecution of the petitioner based on the same materials earlier considered by the authority without application of independent mind. He submits that once as sanction order is refused by the competent authority by way of review, the changed second authority is not competent to grant sanction under Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act. To buttress his argument, he relied in the case of State of Punjab & Anr. Versus Mohammed Iqbal Bhatti, reported in (2009) 17 SCC 92, where in paras-6, 20 and 21, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as follows:-

“6. Although the State in the matter of grant or refusal to grant sanction exercises statutory jurisdiction, the same, however, would not mean that power once exercised cannot be exercised once again. For exercising its jurisdiction at a subsequent stage, express power of review in the State may not be necessary as even such a power is administrative in character. It is, however, beyond any cavil that while passing an order for grant of sanction, serious application of mind on the part of the authority concerned is imperative. The legality and/or validity of the order granting sanction would be subject to review by the criminal courts. An order refusing to grant sanction may attract judicial review by the superior courts.

20. It was, therefore, not a case where fresh materials were placed before the sanctioning authority. No case, therefore, was made out that the sanctioning authority had failed to take into consideration a relevant fact or took into consideration an irrelevant fact. If the clarification sought for by the Hon'ble Minister had been supplied, as has been contended before us, the same shou