Point of law : Sanctioning authority while granting sanction ought to have recorded their satisfaction that on what basis he arrived at the conclusion to grant sanction.

JUDGMENT :

Saroj Yadav, J.

1. By means of the present writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the impugned order dated 28.05.2018 issued by the Secretary to His Excellency the Governor, whereby sanction has been accorded while exercising power vested under Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short 'Cr.P.C.') read with Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 to prosecute the petitioner under Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code (in short 'IPC') and Section 7, 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (in short 'P.C. Act'). The impugned order has been issued by the Director, Ayurvedic Services, U.P. Lucknow vide Letter No. 4896(I)/18A-397/16/Adhi. dated 19.06.2019.

2. Heard Sri Rajesh Chandra Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri S.P. Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that impugned order according sanction to prosecute the petitioner is a composite order whereby the competent authority has accorded sanction to prosecute several persons without there being any specific description about the petitioner. It is not there in the sanction-order, what material has been placed before him and what material he perused from which he got convinced himself to accord the sanction to prosecute the petitioner under Sections 409, 420, 465, 467, 471, 477, 120-B IPC and Section 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of the P.C. Act. The sanctioning authority while granting sanction ought to have recorded their satisfaction that on what basis he arrived at the conclusion to grant sanction. It is also argued that it is incumbent upon the competent authority to apply his mind independently and record satisfaction of being satisfied from the material collected during the course of investigating which has been placed before him. In the present matter, no such basis has been disclosed for according prosecution sanction. Hence, impugned sanction should be quashed. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Mansukhlal Vithaldas Chauhan Versus State of Gujarat (1997) 7 Supreme Court Cases 622.

4. Contrary to it, learned A.G.A. argued that validity of sanction can be raised before the Trial Court during trial. Learned A.G.A. referred paragraph 9 of the counter affidavit wherein it has been stated that "It is relevant to mention here that a financial scam was committed by the department of Ayurvedic and Unani Services, U.P., which was spread over throughout the State and every department connected with the Ayurvedic and Unani Services were involved in the financial scam. After registration of the FIR, the investigation was conducted and petitioner was interrogated by the Prosecuting Agency on 16.01.2007 and from the evidence which had been collected against him, it clearly establishes that he alongwith other co-accused was involved in spending the public money exceeding the budget, which was sanctioned by the department, in this way, the petitioner and other co-accused had misappropriated the public money and they were also not able to give any evidence, justification and explanation for excess expenditure. Even accused was not able to show any entry on the contingency register and vouchers pertaining to excess expenditure, when explanation was called, he had stated that Class IV employee Surendra Singh Negi was responsible. The Prosecuting Agency had collected ample evidence against the petitioner and other co-accused."

Learned A.G.A. further submitted that prosecution sanction cannot be quashed on the ground of delay. Further more, liberty lies with the petitioner to raise all his issues relating to sanction during the trial. Hence, this writ petition should be dismissed.

5. Considered the rival submission raised by the learned counsel for the parties, perused the record and the case laws cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner.

The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Mansukhlal Vithaldas Chauhan Versus State