IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK AGARWAL &

HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE AVANINDRA KUMAR SINGH

th

ON THE 13 OF OCTOBER, 2025 WRIT PETITION No. 12160 of 2024 DADU RAM BASANT Versus THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS Appearance:

Shri Suyash Verma - Advocate for the petitioner.

Shri Nitin Gupta - Government Advocate for the respondents No.1 to 3/State.

Shri Abhinav Shrivastava - Advocate for the respondent No.4.

ORDER Per: Justice Vivek Agarwal This writ petition is filed challenging the order dated

15.03.2024/27.03.2024 passed by the Secretary, Government of Madhya Pradesh, Department of Industrial Policy & Investment Facilitation, whereby the department has granted prosecution sanction against the petitioner Dadu Ram Basant, the then Inspector/In-charge Asstt. Registrar, Firms and Societies, Rewa, Shahdol Division Rewa, under the provisions of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

2. Petitioner is also aggrieved of the order dated 24.04.2024 passed by the Dy. Secretary Government of Madhya Pradesh, Department of Industrial Policy & Investment Facilitation, issuing the revised order of sanction on the ground that firstly petitioner is innocent and secondly, in terms of the provisions contained in Section 19 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, in absence of any error, irregularity etc. sanction should not have been granted.

3. It is submitted that, in the light of the Judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CBI Vs. Ashok Kumar Aggarwal (2014)14 SCC 295, Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under:

"16.1 The prosecution must send the entire relevant record to the sanctioning authority including the FIR, disclosure statements, statements of witnesses, recovery memos, draft charge-sheet and all other relevant material. The record so sent should also contain the material/document, if any, which may tilt the balance in favour of the accused and on the basis of which, the competent authority may refuse sanction.

16.2 The authority itself has to do complete and conscious scrutiny of the whole record so produced by the prosecution independently applying its mind and taking into consideration all the relevant facts before grant of sanction while discharging its duty to give or withhold the sanction.

16.3 The power to grant sanction is to be exercised strictly keeping in mind the public interest and the protection available to the accused against whom the sanction is sought.

16.4 The order of sanction should make it evident that the authority had been aware of all relevant facts/materials and had applied its mind to all the relevant material.

16.5 In every individual case, the prosecution has to establish and satisfy the court by leading evidence that the entire relevant facts had been placed before the sanctioning authority and the authority had applied its mind on the same and that the sanction had been granted in accordance with law."

4. It is also submitted that, relying on the transcript without matching its contents with the Audio Recording in the proper prospective is violative of the principles applicable to grant of sanction as held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Karnataka Vs. Ameer Jan (2007)11 SCC 273. It is also submitted that, in case of P.L. Tatwal Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh (2014)11 SCC 431, it is held that "grant of sanction is an administrative function which intents to protect Public Servants against frivolous and fictitious litigation".

5. Therefore, it is prayed that, present is the case where petitioner has been falsely implicated in the name of alleged demand of bribe of Rs.5000/- from one Shri Rajnish Kushwaha for processing certain amendments in a Society named as "Bharosa Seva Samiti" for which FIR was registered on 19th March, 2020. It is further submitted that, case was registered on the allegation that petitioner's voice was recorded alleging that, he demanded bribe but no money was since recovered from the petitioner during the offence and instead it was foun