ORDER :

1. This petition is filed to quash the proceedings against the petitioner/A6 in CC No. 7 of 2017 on the file of the Court of I Additional Special Judge for CBI Cases, Hyderabad.

2. The petitioner is amongst ten accused, who are being prosecuted for entering into criminal conspiracy during the years 2010 to 2012 in the matter of credit facility sanctioned to A1 company by Bank of India, Banjara Hills branch where the petitioner was working as Chief Manager in the said Bank.

3. The facts of the case are not necessary since the ground raised by the petitioner is that the competent authority for grant of sanction declined to grant sanction for prosecution on 24.01.2015. However, the very same authority has granted sanction on 09.11.2016 on the very same material, on the basis of which sanction was refused earlier.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the sanctioning authority Sri Kul Bhushan Jain, who was the General Manger, NBG (South), Chennai has declined to grant sanction on 24.01.2015 by giving details running into ten pages. A chart was prepared by the authority reflecting the lapses as per the CBI report vis-à-vis lapses as per the internal investigation report, accordingly, commented on the role played by this petitioner. Having considered the entire material, the competent authority declined to grant sanction.

5. Learned counsel further submits that the learned Special Judge has declined to discharge this petitioner on the ground that the judgments cited by the petitioner seeking discharge were rendered under the inherent powers of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and also the High Court, as such, the learned Special Judge has no such power and declined to discharge the petitioner, which is erroneous. In support of his contentions, he relied upon the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the cases of: (i) Bahadursinh Lakhubhai Gohil vs. Jagdishbhai M. Kamalia, (2004) 2 SCC 65 wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that if any statutory authority takes a decision at the behest or on the suggestion of a person who has no statutory role to play, the same would be ultra-vires. Referring to the facts of the present case, he argues that at the instance of CBI, the sanction was again granted, which was earlier refused. He also relied upon the judgments in the cases of; (ii) State of Punjab and Another vs. Mohammed Iqbal Bhatti, 2010 Cri. L.J. 1436 in which the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that when grant of sanction was refused, the very same authority granting sanction again without there being any fresh material cannot be said to be proper. Similar view was taken in the judgment cited in the case of Mohd. Aleemuddin vs. State of Andhra Pradesh, 2014 (1) ALD (Crl.) 120 (AP) and Ashok Shankarrao Chavan vs. His Excellency Shri Ch. Vidyasagar Rao (Bombay).

6. On the other hand, learned Special Public Prosecutor submits that there is nothing wrong with the order of the sanctioning authority granting sanction on 09.11.2016, though refused on 24.01.2015. He also submits that earlier, the competent authority thought it fit to prosecute them departmentally. However, a decision was taken subsequently to grant sanction to the CBI to be prosecuted before the Special Court, which cannot be found fault with.

7. Learned Special Public Prosecutor relied upon the judgment in the case of Avinash Mathur vs. State of Rajasthan, 2011 (2) Crimes 116 wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that granting sanction by the State government to prosecute under the Prevention of Corruption Act and under Section 197 of Cr.P.C. was correct. He also relied upon the judgment in the case of Superintendent of Police (CBI) vs. Deepak Chowdhary, AIR 1996 SC 186 wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that order quashing sanction of an accused on the ground that he was exonerated by the disciplinary authority was not proper. He also relied upon the judgment of Chandan Kumar Basu vs. State of Bihar, (2014) 13 SCC 70 in which, the Hon’ble Supreme Court w