ORDER

Date : 18-02-2020

1. Heard Mr. K. Dabi, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. J. Tsering, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State of Arunachal Pradesh.

2. The petitioner is serving as Deputy Secretary in the Arunachal Pradesh Public Service Commission, (APPSC). A criminal case vide C.B.P.S case No. 05/2015 u/s 120(B),380/381/403/408/468/420/34 IPC R/w Section 5(1) (a) of Official Secret Act was registered on 08.01.2015, against the petitioner and other officials of APPSC, in respect of the alleged leakage of the Arunachal Pradesh Public Service Commission Combine Examination [(APPSCCE) (Main)]

Examination 2013-2014.

3. The petitioner’s counsel submits that the petitioner was arrested and later enlarged on bail by the Learned CJM Capital Complex, Yupia. He submits that though the investigation in the case was initiated in the year 2015, the same has not been completed till date. He accordingly prays for a direction to be issued to the respondents to complete the investigation of the C.B.P.S case No. 05/2015 u/s 120(B),380/381/403/408/468/420/34 IPC R/w Section 5(1) (a)

of Official Secret Act.

4. Mr. J. Tsering, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor submits that the investigation in the above Police Station case has been completed. However, charge-sheet has not been filed as prosecution sanction has not been obtained till date.

I have heard the counsels for the parties.

5. On perusing the letter No. PHQ/CB-PS/FIR-01/2015/676/15 dated

08.10.2015 issued by the Superintendent of Police (SIT), PHQ, Itanagar, addressed to the Chief Secretary, Arunachal Pradesh, it is seen that Prosecution Sanction against the petitioner has been asked for, in connection with the C.B.P.S case No. 05/2015 u/s 120(B),380/381/403/408/468/420/34 IPC R/w Section 5(1) (a) of Official Secret Act. However, no Prosecution Sanction has been given by the authorities till date.

6. The Apex Court in the case of Subramanian Swamy (Dr.) Versus Dr. Manmohan Singh & Anr. reported in 2012 3 RLW(SC) 2256, the Apex Court held in para 20, 21 & 22 as follows:

20. Article 14 must be construed as a guarantee against uncanalized and arbitrary power. Therefore, the absence of any time in granting sanction in Section 19 of the P.C Act is not in consonance with the requirement of the due process of law which has been read into our constitution by the Constitution Bench decision of this Court in Maneka Gandhi Vs. Union of India and Another, (1978 1 SCC 248.

21. I may not be understood to have expressed any doubt about the constitutional validity of Section 19of the P.C. Act, but in my judgment the power under Section 19 of the P.C. Act must be reasonably exercised. In my judgment the Parliament and the appropriate authority must consider restructuring Section 19 of the P.C. Act in such a manner as to make it consonant with reason, justice and fair play.

22. In my view, the Parliament should consider the Constitutional imperative of Article 14 enshrining the rule of law wherein `due process of law' has been read into by introducing a time limit in Section 19 of the P.C. Act 1988 for its working in a reasonable manner. The Parliament may, in my opinion, consider the following guidelines:

a) All proposals for sanction placed before any Sanctioning Authority, empowered to grant sanction for the prosecution of a public servant under section 19 of the P.C. Act must be decided within a period of three months of the receipt of the proposal by the concerned authority.

b) Where consultation is required with the Attorney General or the Solicitor General or the Advocate General of the State, as the case may be, and the same is not possible within the three months mentioned in clause (a) above, an extension of one month period may be allowed, but the request for consultation is to be sent in writing within the three months mentioned in (a) above. A copy of the said request will be sent to the prosecuting agency or the private complainant in the Court to commence prosecution