Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

48. Ld. defence counsel has assailed the sanction order on 02 grounds, one - that PW­1 DCP Sh. Vijay Singh was not competent to grant sanction and the other - that the sanction was granted by PW­1 without application of mind. With respect to the competency of PW­1, it was argued that PW­1 has admitted in the cross­examination that he had no power to appoint a Sub­Inspector since he was in the Junior Administrative Grade of Indian Police Service. About non­application of mind by PW­1 while granting sanction, it was argued that before granting sanction he had discussed the matter with the concerned S.P, CBI, SHO PS Chanakya Puri and Joint C.P, New Delhi range Sh. Mukesh Kumar Meena, thus CC No. 21/2016; CBI Vs. Daya Ram Page No. 26 of 113 was influenced by them and further that PW­1 had received a draft sanction order, Ex. PW­1/DX from CBI which was replicated by him as Ex. PW­1/A after making some cosmetic changes. It was also argued that testimony of PW­1 cannot be believed because he claims to have perused CFSL result before granting sanction, which was not ready when sanction was applied by CBI and was received from CFSL after filing of the charge­ sheet. Defence counsel has relied on "State of Karnataka Vs. Ameerjan, (2007) 11 SCC 273" in support of his arguments.

(emphasis supplied)

51. In C.S. Krishnamurthy (Supra), with respect to the obligation on the sanctioning authority for exercise of power to grant sanction for prosecution, it was held -

7. This sanction order was proved by Mr V. Parthasarthy, Deputy General Manager of Bangalore Telecom as PW 40, he was competent authority to accord sanction and he accorded the sanction for prosecution of the accused for the alleged offence on 28­2­1990 as per Ext. P­83. He deposed that SP, CBI sent a report against the accused and he perused the report and accorded the sanction as per Ext. P­83. He deposed that he was satisfied that there was a case for prosecuting the accused for the alleged offence. He admitted that he received a draft sanction order and a draft sanction order was also examined by the Vigilance Cell and then it was put up before him. He also deposed that before according sanction he discussed the matter with the Vigilance Cell. He also admitted that he was not a law man, therefore, he discussed the legal implication with a legally qualified officer in the Vigilance Cell. He has denied the suggestion that he did not apply his mind in according sanction. It is no doubt true that sanction is necessary for every prosecution of public servant, this safeguard is against the frivolous prosecution against public servant (sic) from harassment. But, the sanction should not be CC No. 21/2016; CBI Vs. Daya Ram Page No. 29 of 113 taken as a shield to protect corrupt and dishonest public servant...................................................... ........................................................................... ........................................................................... ........................................................................... When sanction order itself is eloquent enough, then in that case only formal evidence has to be produced by the sanctioning authority or by any other evidence that the sanction was accorded by a competent person with due application of mind.

58. With respect to the draft sanction order submitted by CBI along with material for grant of sanction, PW­1 has stated in the cross­examination that he had read the draft sanction order and made some changes. Copy of CC No. 21/2016; CBI Vs. Daya Ram Page No. 33 of 113 the draft in which changes were made by PW­1 in his own handwriting is filed as Ex. DW­1/DX­1. The fact that the changes were made in the draft by PW­1 himself shows that he did not sign the draft sanction order mechanically. It has come in his cross­examination that after making the corrections, the sanction order was redrafted. This fact is proved on perusal of the draft sanction order, Ex. DW­1/DX, the draft sanction order bearing correction Ex. DW­1/DX­1 and the final sanction order Ex. PW­1/A. Receiving a draft sanction order from CBI along with other material doesn't mean sanction was granted without application of mind. Reliance is placed on C.S. Krishnamurthy (Supra) in this regard.

61. It seems mention of CFSL report has come in the sanction order Ex. PW­1/A because it is mentioned in the draft sanction order Ex. DW­1/DX submitted by CBI. Mention of CFSL result in the draft Sanction is a mistake committed by IO. He should not have mentioned it in the draft, when it was not received from CFSL. Moreover, defence should have confronted PW­1 about CFSL result, which it failed to do. The mistake of I.O. does not go to the root of the matter so as demolish the CC No. 21/2016; CBI Vs. Daya Ram Page No. 35 of 113 credibility of the sanction order Ex. PW­1/A and can be safely ignored. In this regard reliance is placed on "Karnel Singh Vs. State of M.P, AIR 1995 2472"