1997 (9) TMI 618 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of Sanction u/s 6 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947.
2. Jurisdiction of the High Court to issue a writ of mandamus directing sanction.
3. Application of mind by the sanctioning authority.

Summary:

1. Validity of Sanction u/s 6 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947:
The appellant, a Divisional Accountant in Gujarat, was convicted for offences u/s 161 IPC and Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947. The appellant contended that there was no valid sanction u/s 6 of the Act, rendering the trial court's cognizance and subsequent proceedings void. The trial court and the High Court held that there was proper sanction by the competent authority. However, the Supreme Court scrutinized whether the sanctioning authority had applied its mind independently. It was found that the Secretary, acting under the High Court's directive, granted the sanction mechanically, thus invalidating the sanction order.

2. Jurisdiction of the High Court to Issue a Writ of Mandamus Directing Sanction:
The High Court issued a mandamus directing the Secretary to grant sanction for prosecuting the appellant. The Supreme Court held that the High Court could only direct the Government for expeditious disposal of the matter of sanction, not compel the Secretary to grant it. By doing so, the High Court closed all other alternatives for the Secretary and compelled him to sanction the prosecution, which was beyond its jurisdiction.

3. Application of Mind by the Sanctioning Authority:
The Supreme Court emphasized that the sanctioning authority must apply its independent mind to the facts and evidence of the case. The Secretary was left with no choice but to sanction the prosecution due to the High Court's directive, which compromised the independent application of mind. The conflicting statements from the Secretary and Deputy Secretary further complicated the matter, showing that the sanction was granted under compulsion, not discretion.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court concluded that the sanction order was invalid as it was passed mechanically under the High Court's directive. Given the lapse of fourteen years since the incident, the Court decided against remitting the case for fresh sanction, citing the appellant's right to a speedy trial u/s Article 21 of the Constitution. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, and the appellant was acquitted. The judgments of the trial court and the High Court were set aside.