2021 (8) TMI 1130 - HC - Indian Laws

Issuance of prosecution sanction - non-application of mind - Allegation of taking Bribe - it was alleged that the petitioner was having an amount of ₹ 34,500/- in his pocket which was duly explained by the petitioner. - infringement of constitutional right of the petitioner or not - breach of rule of natural justice - requirement to remand the matter or not - HELD THAT - This Court is of the firm view that if the Authority has not acted in accordance with the provisions as laid down and failed to exercise its discretion which is required to be exercised or failed to act according to the law as it is required to, this Court can interfere and set aside an order wherein the aforesaid principles are not followed. The State Government had already issued a circular on 15.5.2012 to the Head of Department to independently apply their mind before passing prosecution sanction - Admittedly, the Principal Secretary, Transport Department has only filled up the dotted lines. While issuing prosecution sanction dated 5.10.2017, he failed to take notice of the observations in the investigation report of the ACB. Thus, it is a case where this Court is satisfied that there has been a complete non-application of mind while issuing prosecution sanction. This Court deems it appropriate to quash the prosecution sanction dated 5.10.2017 issued by the Principal Secretary, Transport Department and the same is accordingly quashed. Whether the matter should be remitted back to the Authority for reconsideration of the matter and to pass a fresh order of sanction? - HELD THAT - This Court finds that the petitioner has already attained superannuation and taking into consideration the allegations and observations made by the ACB investigation relating to the amount of ₹ 5160/- being as the personal amount and the opinion of Assistant Director (Prosecution) which has been taken notice in the connected criminal misc. petition, this Court is satisfied that no purpose would be served in remanding the matter to the authorities for prosecution sanction after a period of almost 9 years and this Court is inclined to give a quietus to the case so far as it relates to the petitioner. Accordingly, the proceedings against the petitioner are directed to be closed. Petition allowed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Prosecution sanction granted without independent application of mind.
2. Compliance with circular issued by the State Government.
3. Quashing of prosecution sanction.
4. Remitting the matter back to the Authority for reconsideration.
5. Closure of proceedings against the petitioner.

Analysis:

1. The petitioner, a Transport Inspector, was subject to a raid in 2012 by the ACB Udaipur, where an amount was found in his possession. The petitioner explained that a portion was tax collected from vehicles and the rest for personal use. Despite ACB's observation of no prima facie case, prosecution sanction was sought in an autocratic manner without new facts, leading to a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. The prosecution sanction lacked independent application of mind, violating the purpose of such sanctions.

2. The circular issued by the State Government in 2012 emphasized the need for independent application of mind before granting prosecution sanction. The judgment referred to the Supreme Court's stance on the matter, highlighting the importance of the authority's discretion and the requirement for genuine satisfaction based on a thorough consideration of all relevant facts.

3. Relying on legal precedents, the Court emphasized the necessity of the sanctioning authority's independent application of mind. The Principal Secretary failed to consider ACB's investigation report, leading to a quashing of the prosecution sanction. The Court intervened due to the non-application of mind in issuing the sanction, in line with established legal principles.

4. The question of remitting the matter back to the Authority for reconsideration arose. However, considering the petitioner's superannuation and the time elapsed since the incident, the Court decided against remittance. The Court cited the Supreme Court's stance on fairness and Article 21 of the Constitution, opting to close the proceedings against the petitioner, as no purpose would be served by remanding the matter after such a long period.

5. Ultimately, the writ petition was allowed, and all pending applications were disposed of. The Court's decision to close the proceedings against the petitioner marked the conclusion of the case, taking into account the circumstances and legal principles governing prosecution sanctions and independent application of mind by the sanctioning authority.