2015 (3) TMI 1317 - SC - Indian Laws

Demand for bribe to settle certain central excise cases - Held that - There is no dispute that the Competent Authority to grant sanction in the present case is the Finance Minister. Before the matter reaches the Finance Minister, naturally, it has to be processed at different levels and what we find from the nothings in the Original File is that certain authorities at different levels may have taken one view or the other of the matter. All such views which were earlier recorded in the file nothings were placed before the Finance Minister by cataloging the events in chronological order. It is on a consideration of the totality of the facts including the manner in which the matter had been processed at different levels, that the Finance Minister eventually accorded his approval for grant of sanction on 8th August, 2009. The file, in fact, had not reached the Finance Minister at any earlier point of time. This Court has laid down that the validity of a Sanction Order, if one exists, has to be tested on the touchstone of the prejudice to the accused which is essentially a question of fact and, therefore, should be left to be determined in the course of the trial and not in the exercise of jurisdiction either Under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 or in a proceeding Under Article 226/227 of the Constitution. The High Court was not at all justified in passing the impugned order and in interfering with the sanction order dated 21st October, 2009 - appeal allowed - appeal allowed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Validity of sanction for prosecution granted by the Competent Authority.
2. Interference by the High Court in the sanction order dated 21st October, 2009.

Issue 1: Validity of sanction for prosecution granted by the Competent Authority
The Supreme Court considered the challenge against the order dated 11th January, 2013, passed by the High Court of Delhi regarding the sanction for prosecution of the Respondent No. 1. The case involved allegations of bribery against two officers, including the Respondent No. 1, in central excise cases. The Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) recommended prosecution under the Indian Penal Code and the Prevention of Corruption Act. Initially, there were differences in opinion regarding sanction for prosecution and departmental actions. Eventually, the Finance Minister granted sanction on 8th August, 2009, followed by a formal order on 12th August, 2009. Subsequent corrections were made through a corrigendum and a revised sanction order on 21st October, 2009. The High Court found issues with the sanction process, alleging lack of independent application of mind and approval. However, the Supreme Court examined the original records and concluded that there was no refusal of sanction earlier, and the Finance Minister's approval was based on a comprehensive review of the case without undue influence. The Court held that the corrigendum did not alter the substance of the original sanction and did not require re-approval. The Court emphasized that the validity of the sanction should be determined during the trial, not in pre-trial proceedings.

Issue 2: Interference by the High Court in the sanction order dated 21st October, 2009
The High Court had interfered with the sanction order dated 21st October, 2009, citing lack of independent application of mind and approval. The Appellants argued that the High Court's interference was unwarranted as the sanction had been duly granted by the Competent Authority. The Respondent contended that the subsequent grant of sanction was a review of earlier decisions and that certain procedural irregularities invalidated the sanction. The Supreme Court, after reviewing the original records, found that the Finance Minister's approval was based on a thorough consideration of the case. The Court held that the High Court had no justification to interfere with the sanction order and directed that the trial against the Respondent proceed in accordance with the law. The Court set an outer limit of 12 months for the trial to be completed due to the offenses dating back to 2004. Ultimately, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, overturning the High Court's decision and upholding the validity of the sanction for prosecution.