2005 (3) TMI 781 - SC - Indian Laws

Validity Of Sanction - disproportionate of assests to his known source of income - Burden to proof - acquittal of the appellant accused u/s 5(2) read with Section 5(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1947 - HELD THAT - In the present case, a perusal of the sanction order itself shows that Shri C.S. Krishnamurthy's income from all known sources between the period from May 25, 1964 to June 27, 1986 was ₹ 7,91,534.93 that income was from salary, GPF advances, rental income, interest amount from bank accounts and loan amount received from LIC towards house constructions, the dividend income, interest amount and gain in respect of chits received from Navyodaya Sahakra Bank, Vyyalikaval House Building Co-operative Society, Vishalam Chit Funds and Reliance Industries loan received from friends and family members, gain towards sale of scooter/car, sale proceeds of jewellery and income received by family members and the total expenditure incurred by the accused during these period is ₹ 2,41,382.85 and the total assets acquired by the accused both movable and immovable from May 25, 1964 to June 27, 1986 is ₹ 9,51,606.66 ps. Therefore, the accused has to account for difference between the two. In the present case the learned additional sessions Judge took a very narrow view that all the papers were not placed before the Court to show that there was proper application of mind by the sanctioning authority. The view taken by learned Special Judge was not correct and the learned Single Judge correctly set aside the order. In the present case, the sanction order itself discloses the facts that the incumbent is being prosecuted under the provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act for accumulating moveable and immovable assets which is disproportionate to his known source of income and he has failed to give satisfactory account for the same. In the present case, facts mentioned in sanction order are eloquent for constituting prima facie offence u/s 5(2) read with Section 5(1)(e) of the Act. Therefore, there is due application of mind by sanctioning authority and the sanction is valid. Learned counsel for appellant submitted that offence was alleged to have been committed in 1986, now after lapse of almost 19 years would it be advisable to proceed with the matter. It is a matter of corruption and we cannot give any latitude in such matters. Therefore, under these circumstances, we are of opinion that the view taken by learned Single Judge of the High Court appears to be justified and there is no ground to interfere in the present appeal. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. However, nothing said herein or the High Court excepting on the point of sanction should influence the trial court's decision on merits. The adverse observations made against the trial Judge are deleted.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the sanction order.
2. Proof of assets disproportionate to known sources of income.
3. Validity of the prosecution under Section 5(2) read with Section 5(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947.
4. Appropriate order to be issued.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of the Sanction Order:
The primary issue in this case is whether the sanction granted by the authority was valid. The learned Special Judge initially acquitted the accused on the grounds of invalid sanction, stating that the prosecution failed to prove a valid sanction under Exhibit P-83. The High Court later reversed this decision, concluding that the sanction accorded was valid. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision, emphasizing that the sanction order was expressive and detailed, indicating that the sanctioning authority applied its mind properly. The sanction order explicitly stated the assets and income of the accused, demonstrating the accused's disproportionate assets. The Deputy General Manager of Bangalore Telecom, who was the competent authority, testified that he reviewed the report and discussed it with the vigilance cell before granting the sanction.

2. Proof of Assets Disproportionate to Known Sources of Income:
The prosecution alleged that the accused acquired assets disproportionate to his known sources of income during his tenure from May 25, 1964, to June 27, 1986. The total assets were valued at Rs. 9,51,606.66, while his known income was Rs. 7,91,534.93, with an expenditure of Rs. 2,41,382.85, leaving an unexplained difference of Rs. 4,01,454.58. The Special Judge initially acquitted the accused, citing improper sanction, but the High Court found the sanction valid and remitted the case for a fresh trial. The Supreme Court agreed with the High Court, noting that the sanction order itself showed a need for the accused to account for the disproportionate assets.

3. Validity of the Prosecution under Section 5(2) read with Section 5(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947:
The Supreme Court reiterated that the sanction order and the evidence provided by the sanctioning authority (PW-40) were sufficient to establish a valid prosecution under Section 5(2) read with Section 5(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947. The Court referenced previous decisions, including Indu Bhusan Chatterjee Vs. The State of West Bengal and R.S. Pandit vs. State of Bihar, to support the validity of the sanction. The Court emphasized that the sanction should not be a shield for corrupt public servants and that the detailed sanction order indicated proper application of mind by the sanctioning authority.

4. Appropriate Order to be Issued:
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, affirming the High Court's decision to remit the case for a fresh trial. The Court noted that the trial should proceed without being influenced by the previous findings except on the point of sanction. The adverse observations made against the trial Judge were deleted.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court concluded that the sanction order was valid and the prosecution under the Prevention of Corruption Act was justified. The case was remitted for a fresh trial to decide on the merits, ensuring that the process is not influenced by prior judgments except regarding the sanction's validity. The appeal was dismissed, and the observations against the trial Judge were removed.