A review of a sanction order without additional material is impermissible, and an invalid sanction order renders further proceedings non-est.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Mr. Purnendu Chakravarty and Mr. Anuuj Taandon, learned counsels representing the applicants, as well as Mr. Anurag Kumar Singh, learned counsel, representing respondent-Central Bureau of Investigation (hereinafter referred to as 'CBI'), and gone through the entire record.

2. By way of this application under Section 482 CrPC, challenge is to the order dated 12.12.2018 passed by the learned Special Judge, CBI (West), Lucknow in Case No.199/2018, arising out of RC No.0062017A0012 on an application filed by the applicants under Section 239 CrPC, seeking discharge from the offence under Sections 120-B, 420, 465 and 468 IPC read with Sections 13(2) read with Sections 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 lodged at Police Station CBI/ACB, Lucknow. The further challenge is to the cognizance order dated 25.01.2018, to the charge-sheet and to the consequential proceedings of Case No. 199/2018.

3. Mr. Purnendu Chakravarty, learned counsel for the applicants, states that applicant no. 2, P.K. Bose has died during COVID-19. The present application, so far as applicant no. 2, P.K. Bose is concerned, gets abated.

4. The CBI investigated the offence and prepared the charge-sheet, however, the competent authority i.e. General Manager of United India Insurance Company Limited did not grant sanction for prosecution of the applicants. The Deputy Inspector General of the CBI gave no objection to the Court for accepting closure/final report as there was no sanction from the competent authority. In view of the no objection from the competent authority, the Court accepted the closure/final report vide order dated 06.09.2013. The sanction was refused by the then General Manager, Mr. M.V.V. Chalam, vide order dated 27.12.2012 on the basis of which no objection was given by the Deputy Inspector General of the CBI for accepting the final/closure report against the applicants.

5. It appears that after the said General Manager, Mr. M.V.V. Chalam retired, Mr. Ish Kumar was appointed as General Manager. Mr. Ish Kumar reviewed the order of Mr. M.V.V. Chalam, refusing the sanction, and vide order dated 02.02.2017 granted sanction to prosecute against the applicants.

6. It is important to mention here that neither the CBI approached the General Manager nor it brought on record any additional material/evidence as no objection was given for accepting the closure report by the CBI itself and no further investigation was carried out. There was no additional material before Mr. Ish Kumar, the incumbent General Manager other than which was before Mr. M.V.V. Chalam, the then General Manager, who refused to grant of sanction for prosecution of the applicants. Mr. Ish Kumar, on his own, reviewed the earlier order of refusing the sanction for prosecution and granted sanction for prosecution. After Mr. Ish Kumar granted sanction, the learned CBI Court took cognizance on the charge-sheet and summoned the applicants vide order dated 25.01.2018, which was challenged before this Court in application under Section 482 CrPC bearing 6413 of 2018. On 11.10.2018, this Court disposed of the said application vide the following order:-

"1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners as well as learned Additional Government Advocate and perused the record.

2. By means of this petition preferred under Section 482 Cr.P.C. the petitioners have prayed for quashing the impugned order dated 07.08.2018 passed by Special Judge, CBI (West), Lucknow in respect of the present applicants in Court Case No.199 of 2018, Crime No.RC:7(A)/2012 under Sections 120B, 420, 465 and 468 IPC and Section 13(2)/13(1)(d) Prevention of Corruption Act, Police Station CBI/ACB, Lucknow..

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that he would like to file an application for discharge under the provisions of Cr.P.C., to which learned counsel for the State, does not have any object.

4. Accordingly, the petitioners are granted liberty to file an application in conformity with the provisions