2016 (10) TMI 1078 - SC - Indian Laws

Sanction for prosecution of the appellant under Section 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1988 - Held that - What is required under Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1988 is that for taking the cognizance of an offence punishable under Sections 7 10 11 13 and 15 of the Act committed by the public servant is necessary by the Central Government or the State Government as the case may be and in the case of a public servant who is neither employed in connection with affairs of the Union or the State from the authority competent to remove him. Sub-section (2) of Section 19 of the Act provides that where for any reason whatsoever any doubt arises as to whether the previous sanction as required under sub-section (1) should be given by the Central Government or the State Government or any authority such sanction shall be given by that Government or authority which could have been competent to remove the public servant from his office at the time when the offence was alleged to have been committed Having gone through the copy of note-sheets relating to sanction in question placed before us as part of rejoinder affidavit it is evident that there had been proper application of mind on the part of the competent authority before the sanction was accorded. Our perusal of the said record does not indicate that any decision was taken by the competent authority at any point of time not to grant sanction so as to give the decision to grant sanction the colour of a review of any such earlier order as has been contended before us. The opinion of CVC which was reaffirmed and ultimately prevailed in according the sanction cannot be said to be irrelevant for the reason that clause (g) of Section 8 of the Central Vigilance Commission Act 2003 provides that it is one of the functions of the CVC to tender advice to the Central Government on such matters as may be referred to it by the Government. No reason to interfere with the impugned order passed by the High Court dismissing the writ petition. Accordingly the appeal is dismissed. The interim order dated 25.11.2014 passed by this Court is hereby vacated. The trial court is directed to conclude the trial expeditiously.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to sanction for prosecution under Section 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

Analysis:
The case involved a challenge to the sanction for prosecution granted to an officer of the Indian Revenue Service (IRS) under Section 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The appellant was accused of amassing assets disproportionate to his known sources of income during a specific period. The investigation revealed alleged Benami transactions involving significant sums of money invested in companies owned by the appellant's wife and son. The Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) sought sanction for prosecution, which was ultimately granted on 09.10.2012 after a series of consultations and recommendations from the Central Vigilance Commission (CVC) and the Department of Personnel and Training (DOPT).

The appellant challenged the sanction on the grounds of insufficiency of evidence, alleged differences of opinion between the Finance Ministry and the CVC, and non-compliance with the Rules of Business. The appellant argued that the sanction was not valid as the previous Finance Minister had referred the matter back to the CVC, and the subsequent grant of sanction by the successor Finance Minister was questioned. The appellant also relied on the principle that when a power is given to do something in a certain way, it must be done accordingly.

The Supreme Court analyzed the relevant provisions of the Government of India (Allocation of Business) Rules, 1961 and emphasized the importance of the designated competent authority in granting sanction for prosecution. The Court cited precedents to clarify that administrative notings and differing opinions within the government departments do not invalidate the sanction if the final decision is taken by the competent authority. The Court highlighted the necessity of proper application of mind by the competent authority before granting sanction, as mandated by the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

Ultimately, the Supreme Court found no reason to interfere with the High Court's decision to dismiss the writ petition challenging the sanction for prosecution. The Court emphasized the importance of expeditious trial proceedings while refraining from expressing any opinion on the merits of the case. The appeal was dismissed, and the interim order was vacated, with directions for the trial court to conclude the trial promptly. No costs were awarded in the matter.