The sanctioning authority must provide reasons for not according sanction and must apply its mind to the evidence and material collected during the investigation.

(1.11.2012)

The following order of the Court was delivered by :

Ajit Singh, J.

By this petition the petitioner has prayed for quashing of resolutions, Annexures P1 to P7, passed by the President-in-Council, Nagar Panchayat, Naigarhi, District Rewa (respondent no.2) whereby it has rejected the sanction for prosecution.

2. Sukhrajia, wife of Jagdish Prasad, is working on the post of Sweeper in the Nagar Panchayat, Naigarhi, District Rewa (respondent no.3) where one Jagdish Prasad Patel is also posted as Head Clerk/Accountant. On 20.5.2001 Jagdish Prasad made a complaint to the petitioner, Special Police Establishment (Lokayukt), alleging that Jagdish Prasad Patel is demanding Rs.2,000/as illegal gratification to sanction the medical leave of his wife Sukhrajia. Acting upon the complaint, the petitioner gave a tape-recorder to Jagdish Prasad and on 21.5.2001 recorded his conversation with Jagdish Prasad Patel. Having regard to the substance found in the allegation, the petitioner laid a trap and caught Jagdish Prasad Patel redhanded accepting a bribe of Rs.1,000/on 24.5.2001. The bribe amount was recovered from the pant-pocket of Jagdish Prasad Patel in the presence of independent witnesses. On washing his hands and pant-pocket with the prescribed chemical, the colour of solution turned pink. The petitioner, after investigation, placed all the materials and evidence collected against Jagdish Prasad Patel before the President-in-Council, Nagar Panchayat, Naigarhi, District Rewa (respondent no.2) for grant of sanction of his prosecution. But the President-in-Council vide resolution dated 20.11.2012, Annexure P1, decided not to accord sanction because its members were of the view that Jagdish Prasad Patel had deliberately been falsely implicated on account of some conspiracy. The petitioner, dissatisfied with the ground for not according sanction, again pursued the matter but this time also the President-in-Council vide resolution dated 17.12.2004, Annexure P2, did not take a different stand on the ground that Jagdish Prasad Patel is a soft-spoken, hardworking and devoted worker and that he is a victim of conspiracy. Later also the President-in-Council passed similar resolutions, Annexures P3 to P7, denying sanction for prosecution of Jagdish Prasad Patel. It is in this background, the petitioner has filed the present petition for the relief mentioned above.

3. It is argued on behalf of the petitioner that since the resolutions do not speak anything regarding the credibility and reliability of the evidence collected against Jagdish Prasad Patel pertaining to a serious charge of accepting bribe, the same are liable to be quashed. It has also been argued that the sanctioning authority, while deciding the question of grant/refusal of sanction, must apply its mind to the allegations made which has not been done in the present case.

4. We find substance in the submissions made on behalf of the petitioner. On examining the resolutions we find that in none of them there is even a whisper regarding the evidence of accepting bribe submitted against Jagdish Prasad Patel. The resolutions also do not contain any reason as to why the evidence was unacceptable. The President-in Council, while passing the resolutions, has not adverted at all on the credibility and reliability of the evidence collected by the petitioner against Jagdish Prasad Patel. The only ground for not according sanction for prosecution by the President in Council is that Jagdish Prasad Patel was soft spoken, hardworking and devoted worker. In our considered opinion, this alone cannot be a ground for not according the sanction. Even the reason of his false implication is not mentioned in any of the resolutions. It is well settled that the sanctioning authority must apply its mind to the facts of the case as also the material and evidence collected during investigation. We are of the view that the President in Council ought to have given reasons as to why the overwhelming evi