9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Extent of power vested in the Government in reviewing its order granting or refusing sanction to prosecute a public servant u/s 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Summary: Issue 1: Extent of Power Vested in the Government in Reviewing Its Order Granting or Refusing Sanction to Prosecute a Public Servant u/s 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 The question raised in this appeal, by special leave, is as regards the extent of power vested in the Government in reviewing its order granting or refusing sanction to prosecute the public servant in terms of Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short, `the 1988 Act'). Nishant Sareen, the respondent, was caught red-handed accepting a bribe of Rs. 5,000/- and was arrested. Initially, the Principal Secretary (Health) refused to grant sanction to prosecute the respondent, citing the complaint as frivolous and a result of personal enmity. However, upon reconsideration, the competent authority granted sanction to prosecute the respondent, stating that the facts did not support the contention of false implication. Section 19 of the 1988 Act ensures that a public servant does not suffer harassment on false, frivolous, concocted, or unsubstantiated allegations. The Government or the sanctioning authority must apply its mind to the entire material and evidence placed before it. The exercise of power under Section 19 is not an empty formality. In previous cases, such as Gopikant Choudhary v. State of Bihar and Ors. and Romesh Lal Jain v. Naginder Singh Rana & Ors., the Supreme Court held that an order granting or refusing sanction must be preceded by the application of mind. If the order suffers from non-application of mind, it may be called into question before the competent court of law. In State of Punjab and Anr. v. Mohammed Iqbal Bhatti, the Supreme Court observed that while the State exercises statutory jurisdiction in the matter of grant or refusal to grant sanction, it does not mean that power once exercised cannot be exercised again. However, the power of review is not unbridled or unrestricted. Once the statutory power under Section 19 of the 1988 Act has been exercised, it is not permissible for the sanctioning authority to review or reconsider the matter on the same materials again. In the present case, it is not the appellant's case that fresh materials were collected by the investigating agency and placed before the sanctioning authority for reconsideration. The subsequent order granting sanction was based on the same materials, which is impermissible. The investigating agency should have challenged the initial order refusing to grant sanction if they had a legitimate grievance. There is no merit in this appeal, and it is dismissed.
|
