9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2013 (5) TMI 979 - SC - Indian LawsCharges on Bribe against Revenue officer under Prevention of Corruption Act 1947 - Sanction granted by the competent authority was defective and illegal - HELD THAT - The learned trial Judge has referred to the sanction order Ext.13 and the forwarding letter Ext. 14 and thereafter proceeded to observe that the order of sanction is completely bereft of elementary details; that though the date is not mentioned in the FIR the authority has mentioned the date in the sanction order; that the order of sanction is delightfully vague; that the amount of bribe that finds place in the sanction order was told to him and he had no personal knowledge about it; that the minimum discussion is absent in the order of sanction; that grant of sanction being not an idle formality it was incumbent on the competent authority to ascribe proper reasons on perusal of the materials; that there is no material to show the existence of objective material to formulate the subjective satisfaction; that the authority has granted sanction in an absolute mechanical manner; and that the order of sanction does not reflect sincerity of approach. The High Court while dealing with the said reason has really not discussed anything except stating that a possible view has been taken by the learned trial Judge and in appeal it cannot substitute the findings merely because any other contrary opinion can be rendered in the facts of the case. Consequently the appeal is allowed the judgment of the High Court and the conclusion of the learned trial Judge pertaining to the validity of sanction are set aside and the matter is remitted to the High Court. Court have not dealt with any other finding recorded by the learned trial Judge it has to be construed that there has been no expression of opinion on the merits of the case on those counts. The High Court shall be well advised to consider all the aspects barring what has been dealt with in this appeal while dealing with the application for grant of leave.
Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the sanction order granted by the competent authority. 2. Justifiability of the High Court's refusal to grant leave to file an appeal by the CBI. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Validity of the Sanction Order: The core issue revolves around whether the sanction granted by the competent authority was valid in law. The trial court acquitted the accused primarily on the basis that the sanction order was defective and illegal due to non-application of mind, which would show a lack of satisfaction. The High Court upheld this view, stating it was doubtful whether the sanctioning authority had applied its mind while granting the sanction. Legal Principles and Precedents: The judgment extensively discusses the legal principles governing the validity of sanction orders. The court referenced several precedents: - Jaswant Singh v. State of Punjab: It is essential that the sanctioning authority considers the evidence before it and the circumstances of the case before granting sanction. - Mohd. Iqbal Ahmed v. State of Andhra Pradesh: The prosecution must prove that a valid sanction was granted after the sanctioning authority was satisfied that a case for sanction was made out. - Superintendent of Police (C.B.I.) v. Deepak Chowdhary: Grant of sanction is an administrative function requiring the authority to consider the material facts constituting the offence. - C.S. Krishnamurthy v. State of Karnataka: The sanction order should either explicitly show the authority's satisfaction or be proved by evidence. - R. Sundararajan v. State by DSP, SPE, CBI, Chennai: Adequacy of material before the sanctioning authority cannot be questioned by the court. - State of Karnataka v. Ameerjan: The order of sanction should not be construed pedantically but should reflect the authority's satisfaction. - Kootha Perumal v. State through Inspector of Police, Vigilance and Anti-Corruption: The sanctioning authority must examine the material on record and record its satisfaction. Analysis of the Sanction Order: The sanction order in question detailed the allegations, the acceptance of illegal gratification, and the examination of relevant documents and witness statements. The trial court found the order deficient, citing a lack of elementary details and objective material. However, the Supreme Court found this reasoning hyper-technical and emphasized that the order showed application of mind and satisfaction by the sanctioning authority. The court criticized the trial court's approach as overly technical and potentially allowing accused persons to escape on flimsy grounds. 2. Justifiability of the High Court's Refusal to Grant Leave to File an Appeal by the CBI: The High Court declined to grant leave to the CBI to file an appeal against the trial court's acquittal, agreeing with the trial court's view on the invalidity of the sanction order. The Supreme Court found this approach flawed, noting that the High Court did not discuss the merits of the case or other findings of the trial court. Course of Action: The Supreme Court concluded that the matter should be remitted to the High Court for reconsideration of the application for leave to appeal. The High Court is directed to consider all aspects of the case, excluding the issue of the validity of the sanction order, which the Supreme Court has already addressed. The Supreme Court emphasized the need for prompt and proper handling of corruption cases, avoiding unnecessary delays and technicalities that hinder justice. Conclusion: The appeal was allowed, the judgments of the High Court and the trial court regarding the validity of the sanction were set aside, and the matter was remitted to the High Court for further consideration. The Supreme Court did not express any opinion on the merits of the case beyond the issue of the sanction order.
|
