ORDER

1. Delay condoned. Leave granted.

2. The challenge herein is against the order dated 11th January, 2013 passed by the High Court of Delhi in a writ proceeding registered as W.P. (C) No. 578 of 2010 by which the Order dated 21st October, 2009 granting sanction for prosecution of the Respondent No. 1 - Ashok Kumar Aswal has been interfered with by the High Court. Aggrieved, the Central Bureau of Investigation (hereinafter referred to as "the CBI") and Union of India have filed the present appeal.

3. We have heard the learned Counsels for the parties.

4. The facts that would be required to be noticed lie within a short compass and may be enumerated as hereunder. As far back as in the year 2004 the CBI had registered RC No. BA/1/2004/A0031 on the complaint of one Khalik Chataiwala against one Rajeev Agarwal, Commissioner, Central Excise, Panvel and the Respondent No. 1 Ashok Kumar Aswal, who was then working as the Assistant Commissioner, Central Excise.

5. The complainant had alleged that a demand for bribe to settle certain central excise cases against two companies was made by the accused and that the same was paid and accepted.

6. It appears that the CBI submitted a report recommending launching of prosecution against both the Officers under different provisions of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as "the Indian Penal Code") as well as the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The CBI had also recommended regular departmental action against the said two officers. While the matter was under process, there appears to have been some difference of opinion, at certain levels, as to whether Sanction for prosecution should be granted against both the Officers or against Rajeev Agarwal alone. Similarly, there was difference of opinion as to whether a departmental proceeding for imposition of a major or a minor penalty should be instituted. It also appears that on 11th September, 2007 sanction for prosecution of Rajeev Agarwal was accorded by the Competent Authority and in the proceedings filed before the learned trial Court the Respondent No. 1 was also shown as accused and sanction for prosecution of the Respondent No. 1 was stated to be awaited. While the matter was so situated, the learned trial Court discharged the Respondent No. 1 as, admittedly, at that point of time there was no sanction accorded for his prosecution.

7. Subsequently, the matter concerning sanction for prosecution of the Respondent No. 1 was taken up and eventually sanction was accorded in the File by the Finance Minister on 8th August, 2009 on the basis of which a formal order granting sanction was issued on 12th August, 2009. It also appears that on 14th September, 2009 a Corrigendum was issued to effect certain corrections in the sanction order dated 12th August, 2009 whereafter another sanction order (revised sanction) was issued on 21st October, 2009. It also appears that in the letter of the concerned Under Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, Central Board of Excise and Customs, communicating the Sanction Order dated 21st October, 2009 to the Appellant, it has been mentioned that the earlier sanction order dated 12th August, 2009 and the corrigendum thereof dated 14th September, 2009 had been superseded.

8. The Delhi High Court on consideration of the matter took the view that the grant of sanction in the instant case by the Competent Authority was at the behest of the CBI and the same does not disclose a fair and independent application of mind. The High Court also took the view that the subsequent Sanction Order dated 21st October, 2009 was without the approval of the Sanctioning Authority. On the aforesaid two grounds, the High Court thought it proper to interdict the order dated 21st October, 2009 granting sanction for prosecution of the Respondent No. 1.

9. Ms. Pinky Anand, learned Additional Solicitor General appearing for the Appellants, has placed before the Court the Original Records per