IMPORTANT POINT
A public servant cannot be prosecuted under the Prevention of Corruption Act without a valid sanction from the competent authority, and such authority cannot delegate its power to grant or refuse sanction.

JUDGMENT :

PANKAJ BHATIA, J.

1. Present revision has been filed challenging the order dated 20.04.2024 passed by learned Special Judge, Anti Corruption, Central Bureau of Investigation (Central) Lucknow in Criminal Case No. 01 of 2012 (Union of India through C.B.I. v. Sanjaya Dikshit and Others) whereby the discharge application preferred by the revisionist came to be dismissed.

2. The facts, in brief, leading to filing of the present revision are as under:

(i) The revisionist joined State Bank of India as a Probationary Officer and subsequently promoted to the post of Deputy General Manager in the year 2008; he joined as Branch Head of the Kanpur Branch on 17.05.2008. The appointing authority of the revisionist is the Executive Committee of the Central Board of the State Bank of India. While the revisionist was working as a Branch Head of the Bank at Kanpur, a First Information Report came to be lodged against the revisionist and 11 other persons on the basis of a complaint dated 13.08.2009 lodged by the General Manager, State Bank of India, Lucknow. After investigation, a charge-sheet came to be filed on 25.03.2011. As regards the revisionist, the allegation against him was that an amount of Rs.6 Lacs was paid by the co-accused to the revisionist as a motive or reward for showing undue favours to accused firm M/s SRS Investment Company. After the filing of the charge-sheet, the revisionist moved an application seeking discharge under Section 227 of the Cr.P.c. mainly on the ground that no case was made out against the revisionist. He also challenged that there was no sanction for prosecuting the revisionist which was required in pursuance to the mandate of Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act (hereinafter referred to as ‘the PC Act’). It has been brought on record that initially the sanction was refused by the Board which is on record as Annexure – 5. In terms of the refusal of sanction by the appointing authority, an opinion was sought from the Central Vigilance Commission (hereinafter referred to as ‘the CVC’) through communication dated 30.08.2011 (Annexure – 5). Subsequently, when a challenge was made by the revisionist that there is no sanction for prosecution, the CBI which is the prosecuting agency, filed before the trial Court a Sanction Order dated 17.04.2012 according sanction under Section 19 of the PC Act. The said sanction order is on record as Annexure – 6.

(ii) It also bears from record that during trial, the initial refusal to grant sanction in case of the revisionist was sought by the revisionist before the trial Court by moving an appropriate application under Section 91 of the Cr.P.C. which is contained in Annexure – 7. In pursuance to the application filed by the revisionist seeking to bring on record the refusal to Sanction Order dated 30.08.2011, an order came to be passed by the trial Court on 04.01.2012 calling upon the Chief Vigilance Officer, State Bank of India to produce a copy of the letter dated 30.08.2011 before the date fixed.

(iii) It also bears from record that in pursuance to the said order passed by the trial Court, the refusal to sanction order dated 30.08.2011 was produced before the trial Court and is part of the record. The trial Court vide impugned order dated 20.04.2024 rejected the discharge application filed by the revisionist through an extensive order. In the said order, the trial Court had noticed that the competent authority had given the sanction for prosecution in respect of the revisionist, and based upon the said, the discharge application came to be rejected.

3. While arguing the present revision, Shri Chandra Bhushan Pandey, learned counsel assisted by Shri Asim K. Singh, learned counsel for the revisionist confines his challenge to the impugned order only insofar as it is on the basis of a sanction which, according to the counsel for the revisionist, is not a sanction order prescribed under Section 19 of the PC Act. He has not pressed any other point in the present re