Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

14. Per contra, Mr. Singh, the learned ASG submitted that issue of grant of sanction would arise only after perusal of the evidence collected by the investigating agency and/or other material provided to the sanctioning authority. Mr Singh, in support of his submission relied upon decisions of the Apex Court in Dr. Subramanian Swamy v. Dr. Manmohan Singh 5 and CBI v. Ashok Kumar Aggarwal6.

15. In Mansukhlal (supra) the Appellant was prosecuted for the offence punishable under section 161 of IPC and section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 and was ultimately convicted. The conviction was upheld by the High Court in an appeal. The conviction was challenged before the Apex Court on the ground inter 2 (1997) 7 SCC 622 3 1992 Supp(1) SCC 222 4 (1998) 9 SCC 268 5 AIR 2012 SC 1185 6 (2014) 14 SCC 295 wp-776/16.

contention that "material" which is required to be considered by the sanctioning authority is only evidence collected during the investigation process.

20. In Subramanian Swamy (supra), the issue which fell for consideration before the Apex Court was whether a complaint can be filed by a citizen for prosecuting a public servant for an offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and whether the authority competent to sanction prosecution of a public servant for offences under the PC Act is required to take an appropriate decision within the time specified in clause I(15) of the directions contained in paragraph 58 of the judgment of the Apex Court in Vineet Narain v. Union of India7 and the guidelines issued by the Central Government, Department of Personnel and Training and the Central Vigilance Commission.