Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Sheel Nagu and Vinay Saraf, JJ.
Shashikant Mishra v. Union of India through Central
Bureau of Investigation (ACB) Jabalpur
Miscellaneous Criminal Case No. 49651 of 2023 (Jabalpur); Decided on 23.1.2024
(1) Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 -- S. 19 -- sanction for prosecution -- Government can refuse sanction on any ground, but discretion should be exercised based on relevant facts, material and evidence by due application of mind -- validity of grant or refusal of sanction depends upon application of mind by sanctioning authority -- mind of sanctioning authority should not be under pressure from any quarter, nor should any external force be acting upon it to take decision one way or other -- since discretion to grant or not to grant sanction vests absolutely in sanctioning authority, its discretion should not be affected by any extraneous consideration. (1997) 7 SCC 622 followed. [Paras 27 & 31.3]
(2) Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 -- S.19 -- sanction for prosecution -- exercise of power u/s. 19 is not empty formality -- sanctioning authority is supposed to apply its mind to entire material and evidence placed before it and, on examination thereof, reach conclusion fairly, objectively and consistent with public interest as to whether or not sanction be accorded -- sanction is a weapon to ensure discouragement of frivolous and vexatious prosecution and is a safeguard for innocent, but not a shield for the guilty. [Paras 28, 31.2 & 31.3]
(3) Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 -- S. 19 -- sanction for prosecution -- sanctioning authority cannot embark upon inquiry to judge truth of allegations or hold parallel investigation/enquiry by calling for record/report of his department. [Paras 31.4]
(4) Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 -- S. 19 -- sanction for prosecution -- once sanction is refused by competent authority, reviewing such order based on same material would not be appropriate or permissible. [Para 31.5]
(5) Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 -- S. 19 -- Central Vigilance Commission Act, 2003 -- S. 8(1)(g) -- sanction for prosecution -- authority of Central Vigilance Commission to advice sanctioning authority -- opinion of CVC in according sanction not irrelevant since clause (g) of S. 8(1) of Central Vigilance Commission Act provides that it is one of the functions of CVC to tender advice to Central Government and its instrumentalities. (1998) 1 SCC 226 referred to. (2023) 1 SCC 329 followed. [Para 31.7]
(6) Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 -- S. 19 -- sanction for prosecution -- scope of interference -- S. 19(3) postulates prohibition against higher Court to interfere in midst of trial on ground that sanction order suffers from error, omission or irregularity -- unless failure of justice has occurred by reason of such error, omission or irregularity. [Para 31.10]
(7) Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 -- S. 19 -- sanction for prosecution -- scope of interference -- adequacy of material placed before sanctioning authority cannot be gone into by Court as it does not sit in appeal -- if valid sanction order is there on application of mind and is passed pursuant to material placed in and after consideration of circular, Court is not required to consider technicalities in midst of trial. [Para 32]
(8) Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 -- Ss. 7, 13(2) r/w S. 13(1)(b) and 19(1)(c) -- Criminal P. C., 1973 -- S. 482 -- quashing of charge-sheet -- ground that sanction for prosecution rejected twice and thereafter accorded by sanctioning authority based on same material under advice of Central Vigilance Commission -- adequacy of material placed before sanctioning authority cannot be gone into by Court as it does not sit in appeal -- if valid sanction order is there on application of mind and is passed pursuant to material placed before sanctioning authority, Court not required to consider technicalities in midst of trial -- prosecution is producing witnesses -- at this stage, based on deposition of one witness, present petition has been preferred for appreciation of his deposition, which is not permissible -- in absence of availability of copies of so-called earlier refusals, it is not clear whether sanction was refused or comments for refusal of sanction were forwarded by sanctioning authority to CVO -- prima facie these two orders cannot be construed as final decision of refusal to grant sanction -- until and unless refusal is communicated to investigating agency, inability to grant sanction may be treated as internal comments or opinion -- there is only one sanction order, which was passed after consultation with CVC and is impugned here -- sanction was earlier refused based on separate inquiry conducted by sanctioning authority through field functionaries, which is not permissible under law -- sanctioning authority acted beyond its scope -- earlier orders cannot be accepted as valid orders and thus are non est in eye of law -- they were based on extraneous material, therefore, on basis of earlier orders, validity of impugned sanction order cannot be questioned at this stage -- however, petitioner will be at liberty to assail impugned sanction order during trial. 2023 SCC Online SC 911, (2012) 1 SCC 532, CBI (2014) 14 SCC 295 and (2015) 14 SCC 186 followed. 2017 SCC Online Bom. 9552 and 2017 SCC Online MP 880 relied on. (2010) 14 SCC 527, (2009) 17 SCC 92, (2011) 7 SCC 167, (2014) 16 SCC 807 and (2009) 9 SCC 53 distinguished. Writ Petition No. 17044 of 2021 decided on 12.7.2022 referred to. [Paras 32, 35, 36, 39 to 41]
¼1½ Hkz"Vkpkj fuokj.k vf/kfu;e] 1988 & /kkjk 19 & vfHk;kstu ds fy, eatwjh & ljdkj fdlh Hkh vk/kkj ij eatwjh ls bUdkj dj ldrh gS] ijarq foosdkfèkdkj lqlaxr rF;ksa] lkexzh vkSj lk{; ds vk/kkj ij lE;d~ euksfu;ksx }kjk ç;qä fd;k tkuk pkfg, & eatwjh ds çnku ;k bUdkj dh fof/kekU;rk eatwjh çkfèkdkjh }kjk euksfu;ksx ij fuHkZj djrh gS & eatwjh çkf/kdkjh dk eul fdlh Hkh vksj ls ncko esa ugha gksuk pkfg,] u ml ij fdlh ,d çdkj dk ;k vU; çdkj dk fofu'p; djus dk dksbZ ckg~; cy gh ç;qä gksuk pkfg, & eatwjh çnku djus ;k ugha djus dk foosdkf/kdkj iw.kZr% eatwjh çkf/kdkjh esa fufgr gksrk gS blfy, mldk foosdkf/kdkj fdlh ckg~; ckr ls çHkkfor ugha gksuk pkfg,A ¼1997½ 7 ,llhlh 622 vuqlfjrA ¼iSjk 27 ,oa 31-3½
¼2½ Hkz"Vkpkj fuokj.k vf/kfu;e] 1988 & /kkjk 19 & vfHk;kstu ds fy, eatwjh & /kkjk 19 ds v/khu 'kfä dk ç;ksx dksjh vkSipkfjdrk ugha & eatwjh çkfèkdkjh }kjk mlds le{k çLrqr laiw.kZ lkexzh vkSj lk{; ij euksfu;ksx fd;k tkuk rFkk mldk ijh{k.k djus ds mijkar fu"i{krk ls] oLrqijdrk ls vkSj yksd fgr ds vuq:i bl fu"d"kZ ij igq¡puk visf{kr gS fd eatwjh nh tkuk pkfg, ;k ugha & eatwjh rqPN vkSj rax djus okys vfHk;kstu dk mRlkgHkax lqfuf'pr djus dk vL= gS vkSj funksZ"k O;fä;ksa dk j{kksik; gS] ijarq nks"kh O;fä;ksa dh ढky ughaA ¼iSjk 28- 31-2 ,oa 31-3½
¼3½ Hkz"Vkpkj fuokj.k vf/kfu;e] 1988 & /kkjk 19 & vfHk;kstu ds fy, eatwjh & eatwjh çkf/kdkjh vfHkdFkuksa dh lR;rk dk fu.kZ; djus ds fy, tk¡p vFkok mlds foHkkx ls vfHkys[k@çfrosnu e¡xok dj lekukarj vUos"k.k@t‚ap ugha dj ldrkA ¼iSjk 31-4½
¼4½ Hkz"Vkpkj fuokj.k vf/kfu;e] 1988 & /kkjk 19 & vfHk;kstu ds fy, eatwjh & l{ke çkf/kdkjh }kjk ,d ckj eatwjh ls bUdkj dj fn, tkus ij- mlh lkexzh ds vk/kkj ij ml vkns'k dk iqufoZyksdu djuk leqfpr ;k vuqKs; ugha gksxkA ¼iSjk 31-5½
¼5½ Hkz"Vkpkj fuokj.k vf/kfu;e] 1988 & /kkjk 19 & dsaæh; lrdZrk vk;ksx vf/kfu;e] 2003 & /kkjk 8¼1½¼N½ & vfHk;kstu ds fy, eatwjh & eatwjh çkf/kdkjh dks lykg nsus dk dsaæh; lrdZrk vk;ksx dk çkf/kdkj & eatwjh fn, tkus esa dsaæh; lrdZrk vk;ksx dh jk; vlaxr ugha D;ksafd dsaæh; lrdZrk vk;ksx vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 8¼1½ ds [kaM ¼N½ esa micaf/kr gS fd dsaæh; ljdkj vkSj mlds ifjdj.kksa dks lykg nsuk dsaæh; lrdZrk vk;ksx ds —R;ksa esa ls ,d gSA ¼1998½ 1 ,llhlh 226 fufnZ"VA ¼2023½ 1 ,llhlh 329 vuqlfjrA ¼iSjk 31-7½
¼6½ Hkz"Vkpkj fuokj.k vf/kfu;e] 1988 & /kkjk 19 & vfHk;kstu ds fy, eatwjh & gLr{ksi dh O;kfIr & /kkjk 19¼3½ esa mPprj U;k;ky; dks fopkj.k ds eè; esa bl vk/kkj ij gLr{ksi djus ls çfrf"k) fd;k x;k gS fd eatwjh vkns'k xyrh] yksi ;k vfu;ferrk ls xzLr gS & tc rd fd ,slh xyrh] yksi ;k vfu;ferrk ds dkj.k U;k; dh gkfu ugha gqbZ gksA ¼iSjk 31-10½
¼7½ Hkz"Vkpkj fuokj.k vf/kfu;e] 1988 & /kkjk 19 & vfHk;kstu ds fy, eatwjh & gLr{ksi dh O;kfIr & eatwjh çkf/kdkjh ds le{k is'k dh xbZ lkexzh dh i;kZIrrk ij U;k;ky; fopkj ugha dj ldrk D;ksafd og vihy ugha lqu jgk gksrk & ;fn euksfu;ksx dj fof/kekU; eatwjh vkns'k fn;k x;k gS vkSj og is'k dh xbZ lkexzh ds vuqlj.k esa ,oa ifji= ij fopkj djus ds mijkar ikfjr fd;k x;k gS rks U;k;ky; }kjk fopkj.k ds e/; esa rduhdh ckjhfd;ksa ij fopkj fd;k tkuk visf{kr ughaA ¼iSjk 32½
¼8½ Hkz"Vkpkj fuokj.k vf/kfu;e] 1988 & /kkjk 7] 13¼2½ lgifBr /kkjk 13¼1½¼[k½ rFkk 19¼1½¼x½ & naM çfØ;k lafgrk] 1973 & /kkjk 482 & vkjksii= dk vfHk[kaMu & vk/kkj fd vfHk;kstu ds fy, eatwjh ls nks ckj bUdkj fd;k x;k vkSj rRi'pkr~ dsaæh; lrdZrk vk;ksx dh lykg ij mlh lkexzh ds vk/kkj ij eatwjh çkf/kdkjh }kjk eatwjh ns nh xbZ & eatwjh çkf/kdkjh ds le{k is'k dh xbZ lkexzh dh i;kZIrrk ij U;k;ky; fopkj ugha dj ldrk D;ksafd og vihy ugha lqu jgk gksrk & ;fn euksfu;ksx dj fof/kekU; eatwjh vkns'k fn;k x;k gS vkSj og is'k dh xbZ lkexzh ds vuqlj.k esa ikfjr fd;k x;k gS rks U;k;ky; }kjk fopkj.k ds eè; esa rduhdh ckjhfd;ksa ij fopkj fd;k tkuk visf{kr ughaa & vfHk;kstui{k lkf{k;ksa dks is'k dj jgk gS & bl çØe ij] ,d lk{kh ds vfHklk{; ds vk/kkj ij] mlds vfHklk{; ds ewY;kadu ds fy, orZeku ;kfpdk çLrqr dh xbZ gS] tks vuqKs; ugha & rFkkdfFkr iwoZrj ukeatwfj;ksa dh çfr;ksa dh miyC/krk ds vHkko esa] ;g Li"V ugha fd eatwjh ls bUdkj fd;k x;k Fkk ;k fQj eatwjh çkf/kdkjh }kjk eatwjh ls bUdkj ds fy, fVIif.k;k¡ dsaæh; lrdZrk vf/kdkjh dks vxzsf"kr dh xbZ Fkha & çFke–"Vîk bu nks vkns'kksa dk vFkkZUo;u eatwjh çnku djus ls bUdkj ds vafre fofu'p; ds :i esa ugha fd;k tk ldrk & tc rd vUos"k.k vfHkdj.k dks ukeatwjh lalwfpr ugha dh tkrh] eatwjh çnku djus dh vleFkZrk dks vkarfjd fVIif.k;k¡ ;k jk; ekuk tk ldrk gS & eatwjh vkns'k dsoy ,d gS- tks dsaæh; lrdZrk vk;ksx ls ijke'kZ ds mijkar ikfjr fd;k x;k Fkk rFkk ;g‚a vkf{kIr gS & iwoZ esa eatwjh {ks= ÑR;dkfj;ksa ds ek/;e ls eatwjh çkf/kdkjh }kjk dh xbZ i`Fkd~ t‚ap ij vk/kkfjr Fkh] tks fof/k esa vuqKs; ugha & eatwjh çkf/kdkjh us viuh lhek ds ijs dk;Z fd;k & iwoZrj vkns'kksa dks fof/kekU; vkns'k ugha ekuk tk ldrk vkSj blfy, og fof/k dh –f"V esa ukfLr gSa & og ckg~; lkexzh ij vk/kkfjr Fks] vr% iwoZrj vkns'kksa ds vkèkkj ij] vkf{kIr eatwjh vkns'k dh fof/kekU;rk dks bl çØe ij ç'uxr ugha fd;k tk ldrk & rFkkfi] ;kph dks fopkj.k ds nkSjku vkf{kIr eatwjh vkns'k ij vk{ksi djus dh Lora=rk gksxhA 2023 ,llhlh v‚uykbu ,llh 911] ¼2012½ 1 ,llhlh 532- ¼2014½ 14 ,llhlh 295 rFkk ¼2015½ 14 ,llhlh 186 vuqlfjrA 2017 ,llhlh v‚uykbu cacbZ 9552 rFkk 2017 ,llhlh v‚uykbu ,eih 880 voyafcrA ¼2010½ 14 ,llhlh 527] ¼2009½ 17 ,llhlh 92] ¼2011½ 7 ,llhlh 167] ¼2014½16 ,llhlh 807 rFkk ¼2009½ 9 ,llhlh 53 çHksfnrA fjV ;kfpdk Øekad 17044 lu~ 2021 fu.khZr fnukad 12-7-2022 fufnZ"VA ¼iSjk 32] 35] 36] 39 ls 41½
ORDER
1. Petitioner, who is facing criminal prosecution in Special Case No. 03/2022, pending before Special Judge, (CBI), Jabalpur for offences punishable under sections 7, 13 (2) r/w 13(1)(b) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as “PC Act”) arising out of charge-sheet dated 15.07.2022 filed in connection with F.I.R. No. RC0092021A0007 registered by Central Bureau of Investigation, (ACB), Jabalpur (for brevity “CBI”), has preferred the present petition under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short “Cr.P.C.”) for quashment of charge-sheet and further proceedings solely on the ground that prosecution sanction was rejected twice and thereafter accorded by sanctioning authority based on same material under the advice of Central Vigilance Commission (for brevity “CVC”), which cannot be treated as valid sanction and vitiates the charge sheet and trial.
2. With the consent of the parties, the matter was heard finally. Prosecution Case in Brief:
3. Shri Jitendra Kumar Sahu R/o Village Silondi, Tehsil Dhimarkheda, District Katni (hereinafter referred to as “Complainant”) approached Inspector CBI, (ACB), Jabalpur and submitted a written complaint addressed to SP on 21.10.2021, wherein he levelled allegation of demanding bribe of Rs. 10,000/- by Mr. Shashikant Mishra, the then Branch Manager of Central Bank of India, Silondi Branch, Tehsil Dhimarkheda, District Katni (in short “Petitioner”) on 20.10.2021 from his brother Shri Dilip Sahu for processing his application to start a KIOSK (SSP-Small Service Point) of Central Bank of India at village Kachar Gram, which was submitted by Complainant on 5.10.2021. After receipt of complaint, the allegation mentioned in complaint was verified in presence of two independent witnesses and conversation between Petitioner, Complainant and his brother was recorded, transcript was prepared and after due verification and preparation of verification panchnama, F.I.R. No. RC0092021A0007 was registered against Petitioner under section 7 of PC Act.
4. Thereafter, pre-trap proceedings were carried out, memorandums were prepared by Shri R.K. Tank, Trap Laying Officer. Complainant handed over Rs. 10,000/- for the purpose of laying trap and tendering as bribe to Petitioner. Phenolphthalein powder was applied on GC notes provided by Complainant. During trap, Bribe money was accepted by Petitioner from Complainant Shri Jitendra Kumar Sahu on 21.10.2021 in premises of Central Bank of India, Silondi Branch in presence of trap party and independent witnesses Shiv Prasad Katiya, Senior Wielder and Hariom Sharma, Wielder-I posted in office of SSE-P. Way ‘N’, West Central Railway, Jabalpur.
5. Petitioner was caught after accepting tainted bribe amount of Rs. 10,000/- from Complainant and during trap proceeding, fingers of right hand and left hand of Petitioner were dipped in solution of sodium carbonate, which turned pink evidencing that Petitioner had accepted tainted currency notes and handled with them. Bribe money was recovered from the pocket of Petitioner, in presence of above independent witnesses on the spot on 21.10.2021. Post trap memorandum, seizure and other documents were prepared. The petitioner was arrested on 21.10.2021 and was produced before the competent Court on 22.10.2021 and later on released on bail by orders of this Court on 01.12.2021. After obtaining chemical examination report from Central Forensic Science, Laboratory, New Delhi and concluding investigation, request letter was submitted by CBI before sanctioning authority to accord the sanction to prosecute Petitioner, which was granted on 28.6.2022 and after receipt of prior prosecution sanction, CBI filed charge-sheet against Petitioner in Court of Special Judge, Jabalpur, which is pending as Special Case No. 03/2022.
Petition in brief :
6. Petitioner preferred present petition under section 482 of Cr.P.C. for quashment of criminal proceedings solely on the ground that after filing charge sheet by CBI
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 san....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the competent authority must consider fresh materials and apply independent mind in granting sanctions for prosecution, in accordance with sta....
Sanction for prosecution of public servants must reflect independent assessment; repeated refusals by the authority, absent new evidence, undermine legitimacy of prosecution.
The Competent Authority cannot review its earlier decision to refuse sanction without fresh materials, and there is a distinction between absence of sanction and alleged invalidity on account of non-....
Grant or refusal of sanction for prosecution is not an empty formality – Act of according sanction for prosecution must be preceded by proper application of mind by competent authority.
The judgment established that the absence of sanction can be raised at the inception and at the threshold as it goes to the root of the matter. It also emphasized that the validity or illegality of t....
Illegal gratification - Previous sanction necessary for prosecution - Granted sanction for prosecution not maintainable - Section 19 of P.C. Act empowers sanctioning authority to protect innocent pub....
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
