2007 (9) TMI 628 - SC - Indian Laws

Application of the provisions of Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 ( the Act ) - Sanction granted by the competent authority was defective and illegal - Public Servant - alleged commission of an offence under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of the Act - High Court reversed the order of Conviction opining that the order of sanction being illegal - HELD THAT - We have noticed that the sanctioning authority had purported to pass the order of sanction solely on the basis of the report made by the Inspector General of Police. Even the said report has not been brought on record. Thus, whether in the said report, either in the body thereof or by annexing therewith the relevant documents, IG Police had placed on record the materials collected on investigation of the matter which would prima facie establish existence of evidence in regard to the commission of the offence by the public servant concerned is not evident. Ordinarily, before passing an order of sanction, the entire records containing the materials collected against the accused should be placed before the sanctioning authority. In the event, the order of sanction does not indicate application of mind as the materials placed before the said authority before the order of sanction was passed, the same may be produced before the court to show that such materials had in fact been produced. In this case, the High Court called for the original records. It had gone thereinto. It was found that except the report, no other record was made available before the sanctioning authority. The order of sanction also stated so. PW-8 also did not have the occasion to consider the records except the purported report. We are, therefore, of the opinion that the impugned judgment does not suffer from any legal infirmity although some observations made by the High Court, as noticed, do not lay down the correct legal position. The appeal is dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
Interpretation and application of Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

Analysis:
1. The case involved the interpretation and application of Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The respondent, a Second Division Assistant, was accused of demanding a bribe for granting a certificate. The order of sanction for prosecution was issued solely based on a report by the Inspector General of Police, Karnataka Lokayuktha.

2. The Trial Judge convicted the respondent, but the High Court overturned the decision, citing the illegal order of sanction. The State argued that the High Court erred in considering the trivial amount involved and the legality of the sanction order. The defense contended that the order of sanction displayed a lack of application of mind, rendering the judgment unassailable.

3. The Supreme Court emphasized that while an order of sanction should not be overly scrutinized, it must reflect proper application of mind by the sanctioning authority. The Court highlighted the necessity of presenting all relevant materials before the sanctioning authority to ensure a fair evaluation. The judgment referenced past legal precedents emphasizing the importance of the sanctioning authority's role in determining the need for prosecution.

4. The Court referred to the Privy Council's stance on the requirement for the sanctioning authority to consider the evidence before granting sanction. Additionally, past judgments were cited to establish the authority's discretion in granting or withholding sanction based on the facts of each case. The Court dismissed the appeal, affirming the High Court's decision that the order of sanction lacked legal validity despite certain incorrect legal observations made by the High Court.