2011 (11) TMI 842 - SC - Indian Laws

Offences punishable u/s 13(2) r/w Sections 13(1)(d) and 13(1)(a) of the Prevention of Corruption Act - Question of validity of sanction order in the course of trial - HELD THAT - While drawing a distinction between the absence of sanction and invalidity of the sanction , this Court in Parkash Singh Badal 2006 (12) TMI 548 - SUPREME COURT expressed in no uncertain terms that the absence of sanction could be raised at the inception and threshold by an aggrieved person. In our view, invalidity of sanction where sanction order exists, can be raised on diverse grounds like non-availability of material before the sanctioning authority or bias of the sanctioning authority or the order of sanction having been passed by an authority not authorised or competent to grant such sanction. The above grounds are only illustrative and not exhaustive. All such grounds of invalidity or illegality of sanction would fall in the same category like the ground of invalidity of sanction on account of non-application of mind - a category carved out by this Court in Parkash Singh Badal, the challenge to which can always be raised in the course of trial. Since cognizance has already been taken against the Appellant by the Trial Judge, the High Court cannot be said to have erred in leaving the question of validity of sanction open for consideration by the Trial Court and giving liberty to the Appellant to raise the issue concerning validity of sanction order in the course of trial. Such course is in accord with the decision of this Court in Parkash Singh Badal and not unjustified. Therefore, we are satisfied that the impugned order does not call for any interference. Appeals are, accordingly, dismissed. However, it will be open to the Appellant to raise the issue of invalidity of sanction order before the Trial Judge.

Summary

Issues:
Prosecution under Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 based on sanction order challenged by appellant before High Court. High Court dismissal of Writ Petition challenged in intra-court appeal. Appellant's contention on validity of sanction order before trial. Division Bench's decision on challenging sanction order during trial. Interpretation of significance of sanction under P.C. Act. Distinction between absence of sanction and invalidity of sanction. Consideration of earlier decisions by the Supreme Court on validity of sanction order. Appellant's request regarding personal appearance before Trial Judge.

Analysis:
The judgment by the Supreme Court of India involved a case where the Appellant was being prosecuted under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 based on a sanction order granted by the authority. The Appellant challenged the legality and validity of the sanction order before the High Court, which was dismissed. The Single Judge and Division Bench of the High Court upheld the sanction order's validity, leading to the Appellant filing an appeal before the Supreme Court.

The Appellant argued that the High Court should have examined the merits of the challenge to the sanction order before trial, citing previous Supreme Court decisions. The Appellant contended that the sanction order lacked proper application of mind, which should have been scrutinized by the High Court. On the other hand, the Additional Solicitor General supported the Division Bench's view that the challenge to the sanction order should be raised during the trial, relying on relevant legal precedents.

The Supreme Court, in its analysis, referred to previous judgments emphasizing the importance of sanction under the Prevention of Corruption Act. The Court highlighted that the validity of a sanction order depends on the material considered by the sanctioning authority, indicating the application of mind. The Court also distinguished between the absence of sanction and the invalidity of sanction, stating that the latter should be raised during the trial.

The Court further discussed earlier decisions where the High Court had overturned convictions based on the invalidity of sanction orders. The Court clarified that challenges to the validity of sanction orders, when they exist, should be raised during trial on various grounds like non-availability of material or bias of the sanctioning authority. In the present case, since cognizance had already been taken by the Trial Judge, the High Court's decision to leave the validity of the sanction open for trial consideration was deemed appropriate.

Regarding the Appellant's request for dispensing with personal appearance before the Trial Judge, the Court permitted the Appellant to appear through an advocate, except when necessary. Ultimately, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeals, affirming the High Court's decision but allowing the Appellant to raise the issue of the sanction order's invalidity before the Trial Judge.