Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

7. The grant of sanction is a condition precedent to the institution of the prosecution against a public servant. As per provisions of Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, no court shall take cognizance of an offence punishable under Sections 7, 10, 11, 13 and 15 alleged to have been committed by a public servant, except with the previous sanction of the competent authority. Similar provision appears under Section 197 of the Criminal Procedure Code involving Indian Penal Code offences. It starts with a non-obstante clause that no court shall take cognizance of such offence except with the previous sanction of the competent authority against the public servant accused of any offence alleged to have been committed by him while acting or purporting to act in the discharge of his official duties. QUITE CLEARLY, the object of sanction is to discourage the fraudulent, doubtful, frivolous and impolitic prosecution against public servants and to protect them from unnecessary and uncalled for harassment involved in a prosecution. It is a safeguard for the innocent public servant though not a shield for the corrupt and, therefore, while considering proposals received from the prosecution agency seeking sanction for prosecution of public [2024:RJ-JD:43289-DB] (4 of 12) [SAW-707/2023] servants for offences committed by them at a time when they were engaged in their official duty, the concerned sanctioning authority shall have to carefully peruse the entire relevant record and has to do complete and conscious scrutiny of the whole records so produced by the prosecution agency and independently applying his mind satisfy himself as to if facts and circumstances of the case and material evidences on record justify existence of a prima-facie case against the accused. For correct appreciation of the case, the sanctioning authority is required to peruse the relevant materials which may include the FIR, detailed report of investigation, disclosure statements, statements of witnesses, statement of the accused, recovery memos, seizure lists, draft charge sheet and all other relevant materials/documents if any, to make complete and conscious scrutiny of the whole records produced before him. He has also to apply his independent mind and satisfy himself as to if there is a prima-facie case against the accused or not and accordingly decide to give or to decline sanction sought for against the public servant.

8. At this stage, we may profitably reproduce for easy reference, the draft prosecution document and the order granting sanction. The draft prosecution document read as under :

vfHk;kstu Lohd`fr la[;k 90@2014 fnukad 28-02-2014 vUrxZr /kkjk 7 ih-lh- ,DV 1988 foL) Jh gjh"k iVokjh] iVokj e.My [kSju dk ikjM+k rg0 x<+h ftyk ckalokM+kA+ 1- esjs /;ku esa yk;k x;k gS fd Jh gjh"k cqudj fnukad 21-06-13 dks iVokjh] iVokj e.M+y [kSju dk ikjM+k rg0 x<+h ftyk ckalokM+k ds in ij inLFkkfir FksA [2024:RJ-JD:43289-DB] (5 of 12) [SAW-707/2023] 2- esjs /;ku esa yk;k x;k gS fd Jh jkds"k Mkeksj iq= Jh dUgS;kyky fu0 xkao eksjM+h rglhy x<+h ftyk ckalokM+k us dk;kZy; Hkz0fu-C;wjksa Mwaxjiqj esa mifLFkr gksdj ,d fyf[kr fjiksVZ nh fd esjs xkao esa gekjh iSr`d tehu gSA esjs dkdk ykyth firk fnrh;k us fnukad 06-06-12 dks tfj;s jftLVMZ fjyht MhM ds rgr gekjh iSr`d tehu dqy 19 [ksr dh jdck 1-95 gSDVj Hkwfe esjs nknkth gd: firk [kfy;ka ds uke dj nh FkhA ijUrq ml tehu dk ukekUrjdj.k iVokjh gjh"k cqudj] iVokj e.My [ksju dk ikjM+k rglhy x<+h ftyk ckalokM+k esjs nknkth gd:

12. In Manish Mathur Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr., S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.12684 of 2012, it was held as under :

"As already stated, in the instant matter too the sanction granted and the draft to grant sanction are ad verbatim same. The Director, Mines and Geology appears to have [2024:RJ-JD:43289-DB] (11 of 12) [SAW-707/2023] adopted the draft ipse dixit. Section 19 of the Act of 1988 postulates absolute authority to grant sanction for prosecution to the competent authority, as such, the competent authority is required to apply its own mind by considering all relevant facts. The competent authority may avail assistance of other persons, but in no case, any other authority can initiate the process of consideration for grant of sanction and instruct the competent authority for granting sanction. In the case in hand, the consideration for grant of sanction, as a matter of fact, was initiated by the Anti Corruption Bureau by sending a draft for granting sanction for prosecution. The Anti Corruption Bureau could have communicated all relevant facts on the basis of which prosecution sanction could have been granted, but in no case, the Bureau could have instructed for grant of prosecution sanction under a proposed and drafted document. The prosecution sanction granted in the instant matter by the Director, Mines and Geology, Udaipur under the letter dated 18.10.2012 on face depicts non- application of mind and abdication of the powers by the Anti Corruption Bureau. The same, therefore, is illegal."

13. Applying the ratio of the above judgments to the present case, we hold that the proposed draft document for grant of prosecution sanction furnished by the Anti Corruption Bureau to the sanctioning authority cannot be upheld in terms of Manish Mathur and is therefore declared illegal.

14. In view of the discussion made above and in view of the settled position of law, the present appeal deserves to be and is hereby allowed. The impugned judgment dated 24 th May 2023 is hereby set aside. As a consequence, the order dated 28 th January 2015 as passed by the Collector, Banswara is also quashed and set aside. However, the sanctioning/competent authority shall be at liberty to reconsider the entire matter in accordance with law for [2024:RJ-JD:43289-DB] (12 of 12) [SAW-707/2023] grant of sanction to prosecute the appellant under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.