Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2023 Supreme(P&H) 435

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Anupinder Singh Grewal, J.
Tulsi Ram Mishra – Appellant
Versus
State Of Punjab & Ors. – Respondents
CRM-M-11381-2016 (O&M)
Decided On : 15-09-2023

Advocates appeared:
Mr. Vaibhav Sehgal, Advocate, for the Appellant; Mr. Luvinder Sofat, DAG, Dr. Anmol Rattan Sidhu, Senior Advocate with Mr. Anandeshwar Gautam, Advocate and Ms. Tejaswini, Advocate, Mr. Satyapal Jain, Additional Solicitor General of India with Mr. Dheeraj Jain, Senior Panel counsel, for the Respondent.

The competent authority to grant sanction for prosecution of an IAS officer is the Central Government under the Prevention of Corruption Act.

Headnote:The petition was filed under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., challenging an order that discharged a public servant from prosecution under the Prevention of Corruption Act. The Court analyzed the competency of the authority that granted sanction for prosecution and concluded that the sanction must be issued by the Central Government as per Section 19 of the Act. The issues revolved around the authority of the State Government to grant such sanction. The Court found that the competent authority is indeed the Central Government and directed that all documents related to the sanction be forwarded for appropriate consideration. It emphasized the principle that prosecution must be substantively supported by valid sanction.

Table of Content
1. petition under section 482 of cr.p.c. concerning discharge of public servant. (Para 1 , 2 , 3)
2. arguments regarding the validity of sanction and competency of authorities. (Para 4 , 5 , 6)
3. analysis on competence and process of sanction under the pc act. (Para 8 , 9 , 18)
4. importance of addressing public corruption allegations and maintaining integrity. (Para 29 , 30)
5. direction for re-evaluation of sanction by competent authority. (Para 43 , 44 , 46)

JUDGMENT

Anupinder Singh Grewal, J. - This petition has been preferred under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. impugning the order dated 08.01.2015 whereby the Special Judge, SAS Nagar, has discharged respondent No.2 in a criminal case arising out of FIR No.9 dated 09.11.2009, registered under Sections 7 and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as 'the PC Act').

I. Submissions on behalf of the petitioner

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner had submitted that the allegations against respondent No.2 were serious inasmuch as he was caught red-handed while accepting illegal gratification of Rs.2 lacs in the presence of two witnesses. The State Government had accorded sanction on 27.04.2010 to prosecute respondent No.2 as he was serving in the State of Punjab. The challan had been filed on 29.04.2010 along with the sanction to prosecute accorded by the State Government. Respondent No.2 was serving in the State Government as the Director, Department of Industries & Commerce and, therefore, it could not be said to be an invalid sanction. He had further submitted that even if it is considered to be an invalid sanction, respondent No.2 could not have been discharged and only at the conclusion of trial, the validity of sanction could have been examined and he had to prove that the order of sanction had caused grave prejudice to him in view of Section 19 of the PC Act. He had, therefore, submitted that impugned order be set aside and respondent No.2 be prosecuted under the PC Act. In support of his submissions, he had relied upon the judgments of the Supreme Court in the cases of Dharamaraj Vs. Shanmugam, (2022) SCC Online SC 1186, K. Shanthamma Vs. State of Telangana, Docid # IndiaLawLib/1601210, State through Deputy Superintendent of Police Vs. R. Soundirarasu, (2022) SCC Online SC 1150, Vijay Rajmohan Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation (Anti Corruption Branch), (2023) 1 SCC 329, State of Rajasthan Vs. Tejmal Choudhary, (2021) SCC Online SC 3477, Neeraj Dutta Vs. State (Government of NCT of Delhi), Docid # IndiaLawLib/1602448, State of Chattisgarh Vs. Aman Kumar Singh, (2023) SCC Online SC 198 and Sheonandan Paswan Vs. State of Bihar, Docid # IndiaLawLib/276375.

II. Submissions on behalf of respondent No. 1

3. Learned State counsel while relying upon the reply had submitted that legality or validity of the sanction for prosecution has to be raised in the course of the trial and has to be decided at the conclusion of the trial. A wrong or improper sanction from some other authority would not render the case of the prosecution as null and void. He has cited the judgments in the cases of Vijay Rajmohan Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation (Anti Corruption Branch), (2023) 1 SCC 329, CBI Vs. Ashok Kumar Aggarwal, Docid # IndiaLawLib/263921. In the reply filed by respondent No.1/State, it is also stated that merely on account of sanction not being accorded by the competent authority the whole trial would not be vitiated. The prayer in the reply is that the petition be allowed in view of the submissions made by counsel for the petitioner as well as answering respondents and impugned order be set aside.

III. Submissions on behalf of respondent No. 2

4. Learned senior counsel had submitted that respondent No.2 had been rightly discharged by the impugned order because the sanction accorded by the State Government was not proper as it was not the competent authority. The Central Government was the competent authority to grant sanction. Although the Stat