Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Madhya Pradesh High Court

Kailash Verma vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 14 February, 2018

      HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH:
          MAIN SEAT AT JABALPUR

(DIVISION BENCH: HON. SHRI S.K. SETH AND
   HON. SHRI ANURAG SHRIVASTAVA, JJ)


       Writ Petition No.11987/2017

Kailash Verma S/o Ratan Lal Verma,
Aged about 50 years, Sub forest Ranger,
North Forest Circle, Banda, District-
Sagar, At Present:- Anudesh Forest
School, Shivpuri (M.P.)
                          ...Applicant/s
          V E R S U S

State of Madhya Pradesh & others

                         ...Respondent/s
Shri Narendra Kumar Sharma, Advocate for
the petitioner.
Shri Pankaj Dubey, Advocate for the
respondent No.4/Lokayukt.
Whether approved for reporting - Yes/No
Law Laid Down -
Significant Paragraphs -
                O R D E R

(14th day of February, 2018) PER SETH, J.

In this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioner is seeking quashment of order dated 28.11.2016 whereby sanction for prosecution in relation to Crime No.180/2012 for offences under Sections 13 (1)(e), 13 (2) of the Prevention of ::2::

Corruption Act, 1988 and Section 120-B of IPC against the petitioner has been granted.

2. At the relevant point of time, petitioner was posted as S.D.O., North Zone Banda, District-Sagar in the Forest Department.

3. Lokayukt Police has made a search with regard to the income and property of the petitioner and seized Rs.5,53,000/- in cash. After investigation, it is found that in the check period from the date of appointment till the date of raid, the total income of the petitioner was Rs.56,59,475/- and the expenses was Rs.1,28,27,703/-. It is further assessed that petitioner has incurred Rs.71,68,228/- which is 126% more than the total income of his entire services. After investigation, challan has been filed and the learned Special Judge (Prevention of Corruption Act) Sagar has taken cognizance against petitioner and his wife.

::3::

4. After completing the investigation, the material collected during the investigation was laid for seeking sanction to prosecute the petitioner and vide order dated 28.11.2016 (Annexure-

P/8), the said permission has been granted by the State Government to prosecute the petitioner for offences under Section 13(1)(e), 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and Section 120-B of IPC. Hence, this petition.

5. We have heard the rival submissions at length and perused the material available on record.

6. To assail the prosecution sanction, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that Under- Secretary was not competent to issue the sanction for prosecution. It is also submitted that without application of mind, sanction was issued by the Under-Secretary. It is further submitted that prima facie no case was made out for sanction for prosecution.

::4::

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of C.B.I. Vs. Ashok Kumar Aggarwal reported in AIR 2014 SC 827 . It was held by their Lordships that the sanction lifts the bar for prosecution. Therefore, it is not an acrimonious exercise but a solemn and sacrosanct act which affords protection to the Government servant against frivolous prosecution. Further, it is a weapon to discourage vexatious prosecution and is a safeguard for the innocent, although not a shield for the guilty.

8. The law on this point is no logner res integra. It is now well settled that an order granting sanction for prosecution is an administrative function and for that, only prima facie satisfaction of the authority is needed. The adequacy of material cannot be judged at this stage and the Court should not interfere with the valid sanction adopting hyper-technical view. Now coming to the question of ::5::

sanction order issued by Under- Secretary, it is settled that in a democratic set-up file moves from one rung of the ladder to a higher rung in the order of hierarchy and each level officer has to give his input before file moves forward. It is well established working procedure of the Executive Branch of the Government. After the matter is processed and a decision is taken, a formal and duly authentic order is issued in terms of Rules of Business. It is the sanction order issued by the State Government and not by the Under-Secretary.

9. We find no force in the submission that sanction for prosecution has been passed by Under-Secretary. In fact, it is a formal order duly authenticated by and in the name of the Governor of M.P. in terms of Rules of Business of the Government. The decision is taken on the file and thereafter it is only a formal sanction order which has been issued by and in the name of the Governor. The contention that P.C.C.F. was not inclined is ::6::

neither here nor there because the sanction order has been issued by the State Government which is the requirement of law. In this context, we may say that there is a presumption that all official acts have been done by the respective functionaries in discharge of the duties enjoined on them under the law.

10. We find no force in the submission that entire material was not placed before issuing the sanction order. The sanction order is not defective.

11. Thus, we find no merit and substance in the petition, same is accordingly dismissed.

12. Ordered accordingly.

   (S.K. SETH)                 (ANURAG SHRIVASTAVA)
    J U D G E                        J U D G E


@shish

Digitally signed by ASHISH
KUMAR JAIN
Date: 2018.02.19 16:20:05
+05'30'