Back
High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
Samvatsar, J.
STATE - Appellant
Versus
HIRANAND - Respondents
Criminal Revn. 71 Of 1955
Decided On : 04/20/1957
SANCTION TO PROSECUTE - VALIDITY - REQUIREMENT - CORRELATION BETWEEN SANCTION AND OFFENCE - APPLICATION OF MIND BY SANCTIONING AUTHORITY - JUDICIAL REVIEW.
Fact of the Case:
The accused, an employee of the Cantonment Board, was accused of receiving illegal gratification and other malpractices. The Cantonment Board, after receiving reports and conducting an inquiry, accorded sanction to prosecute the accused under Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. The accused challenged the validity of the sanction on the grounds that the sanctioning authority did not apply an unbiased mind and that the sanction was vitiated by non-compliance with certain provisions of the Cantonments Act and the Rules framed thereunder.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the sanction was valid and could be the basis of a valid prosecution of the accused. It found that the sanctioning authority had applied its mind to the facts of the case and that the alleged irregularities in the proceedings of the Cantonment Board did not vitiate the decision to grant sanction.
Issues: 1. Whether the sanctioning authority had applied its mind to the facts of the case before according the sanction? 2. Whether the sanction was vitiated by reason of the failure of the Board to strictly comply with certain provisions of the Cantonment Board Act and the Rules framed thereunder?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the sanctioning authority had applied its mind to the facts of the case before according the sanction. It noted that the sanctioning authority had considered the report of an ad hoc committee appointed to examine the matter, as well as the report of the Anti-Corruption Officer. The court also noted that the sanctioning authority had refused to sanction prosecution with respect to two cases where it found that a prima facie case was not made out. 2. The court held that the alleged irregularities in the proceedings of the Cantonment Board did not vitiate the decision to grant sanction. It found that the irregularities were at best irregularities and that they did not render the sanction void.
Final Decision: The court allowed the revision application, set aside the order passed by the learned Special Judge, and remanded the case to him for trial and disposal according to law.
( 1 ) THE opponent in this case is one Hiranand s/o Hotchand, an employee of the cantonment Board at Mhow. During the year 1953-54 he was Office superintendent in the office of the Board. He has a son by name Gurubux, who carried on business as an insurance agent.
( 2 ) SOMETIME in the year 1953 there were rumours that Hiranand coerced his subordinates in taking policies of the insurance company which was represented by his son and also received illegal gratifications. There were also anonymous letters received by the authorities complaining against Hiranand for mal-practices. Ramkishan, the Vice-President of the Cantonment Board and certain other persons requested the Executive Officer of the Cantonment Board by a letter dated 20-81953 to inquire into the conduct of Hiranand. No definite action was however taken by the Executive Officer on this letter.
( 3 ) IT seems that complaints against Hiranand were also received by the Anti-Corruption Police, and after making some kind of inquiry, the police approached the Cantonment Board for sanction to prosecute Hiranand on certain specific charges. The Board by its resolution dated 15-7-1954 accorded sanction with respect to four specified cases. Copy of the sanction is produced in this case at Ex. P/14. ( 4 ) THE police wanted to prosecute Hiranand for certain other acts also which were specified by them in their report, copy of which is produced at Ex. P/ll-A in this case and requested the Board, vide Ex P/12, to consider the matter again and to accord sanction to prosecute Hiranand on all other charges referred in that report. The Board reconsidered the question in the meeting held on 24-8-1954 and accorded sanction to prosecute Hiranand for ten out of twelve charges levelled against him. The resolution of the Board is produced in this case at Ex P/13 and the sanction based thereon is produced at Ex. P/15. After obtaining this sanction the Anti-Corruption Branch of the Police Department launched a prosecution against Hiranand under Section 5 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act before the Special Judge at Indore.
( 5 ) ON 9-5-1955 when the case was fixed for prosecution evidence, an application was submitted by Mr. Bhargava, learned Counsel for the accused, complaining that the sanction to prosecute given by the Cantonment Board was invalid. The validity of the sanction was challenged on two grounds which are set forth below :
(1) The resolution passed by the Cantonment Board and a perusal of lines 4 and 5 of Paragraph 2 of the copy of the said resolution will show that even prima facie, the sanctioning authority was never of a clear mind whether any substantive offences had been committed regarding the matters mentioned therein.
(2) The sanction itself has been signed (as the copy in the Court shows)by only one member (Vice-President) who by himself is not the sanctioning authority.
( 6 ) THE learned Counsel therefore prayed that the point, whether the sanction is valid one or not, may be decided as a preliminary point and such evidence as can throw light on it may be taken first.
( 7 ) THE learned Special Judge heard the parties on this application and by his order dated 14-5-1955 directed the prosecution to produce evidence which may facilitate the disposal of the objections raised to the validity of the sanction.
( 8 ) THE prosecution thereupon produced certain documents from the record of the cantonment Board and examined one Ram Kishan, Vice President of the cantonment Board. The prosecution also produced the report of the Anti-Corruption Officer and the resolution of the meeting of the Board in which the sanction was accorded. On considering this evidence, the learned Special Judge held as follows :
"this result is that so called sanction in this case is not worth its name. It is a hollow document steeped in prejudice and a product of legal ignorance. In according it the Board has consciously or unconsciously followed the dictates of the Anti-Corruption Auth
AI
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
