TMI Blog2014 (2) TMI 1394X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... able of proof before the court. The trial court should conduct a proper inquiry as to whether all the relevant materials were placed before the competent authority and whether the competent authority has referred to the same so as to form an opinion as to whether the same constituted an offence requiring sanction for prosecution. Appeal allowed. - CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 456 OF 2014 (ARISING OUT OF S.L.P. (CRIMINAL) NO. 9999/2011) - - - Dated:- 19-2-2014 - S.J. MUKHOPADHAYA AND KURIAN JOSEPH, JJ. For the Appellant : Rekha Pandey and Shiv Prakash Pandey, Adv. For the Respondent : C.D. Singh, Sakshi Kakkar and Bhupendra Pratap Singh, Advs. JUDGMENT Kurian Joseph, J. 1. Leave granted. 2. The Appellant along with two others were sought to be prosecuted under Section 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as the 'PC Act'). The allegations pertain to the irregularities in the award of the contract and construction of administrative building for the Corporation of Ujjain during the period 1991-1993. At the relevant time, the Appellant was working as the Assistant Engineer in the Corporation and the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ven by the State Government. 6. We are afraid, the contentions cannot be appreciated as the same do not found any basis in law or logic. Section 19(1) of the PC Act reads as follows: 19. Previous sanction necessary for prosecution.-(1) 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,- (a) in the case of a person who is employed in connection with the affairs of the Union and is not removable from his office save by or with the sanction of the Central Government, of that Government; (b) in the case of a person who is employed in connection with the affairs of a State and is not removable from his office save by or with the sanction of the State Government, of that Government; (c) in the case of any other person, of the authority competent to remove him from his office. (Emphasis supplied) 7. The Appellant comes under Section 19(1)(c). The competent authority to give previous sanction is the authority competent to remove one from service. No doubt the appointing authority is the authority competent to remove him from service. Under ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hat the authority has only accepted the recommendations of the Commissioner. But there is nothing to show that the recommendation was before the authority. Still further, it is pointed out that the order of sanction does not indicate reference to any material; however, the enclosures give an indication that the inquiry report of the Special Police Establishment and government letter were before the competent authority. In order to appreciate the contention properly, we shall extract the Resolution of the Standing Committee, which reads as follows: Resolution No. 309 Dated 27-08-1996 of Standing Committee Meeting, Ujjain Municipal Corporation With regard (sic) to sanction of prosecution in Crime No. 54/93 against Administrator of Municipal Corporation and Ors. letter of Commissioner Municipal Corporation No. 310 dated 22.06.1996 stating that the Government has sought sanction for prosecution of Shree R.K. Sharma, the then Superintending Engineer, Shree R.K. Bhagat the then City Engineer, Shree P.L. Tatwal, the then Assistant Engineer, who were posted with Municipal Corporation Ujjain. Under Section 19(1)(c) (sic) of Prevention of Corruption Act, sanction for prosecution ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... reflected in the order and if not, it should be capable of proof before the court. 13. In a recent decision in State of Maharashtra through Central Bureau of Investigation v. Mahesh G. Jain (2013) 8 SCC 119, the court has referred to the various decisions on this aspect from paragraph 8 onwards. It has been held at paragraph 8 as follows: 8. In Mohd. Iqbal Ahmed v. State of A.P.S. this Court lucidly registered the view that (SCC p. 174, para 3) it is incumbent on the prosecution to prove that a valid sanction has been granted by the sanctioning authority after being satisfied that a case for sanction has been made out constituting an offence and the same should be done in two ways; either (i) by producing the original sanction which itself contains the facts constituting the offence and the grounds of satisfaction, and (ii) by adducing evidence aliunde to show the facts placed before the sanctioning authority and the satisfaction arrived at by it. It is well settled that any case instituted without a proper sanction must fail because this being a manifest defect in the prosecution, the entire proceedings are rendered void ab initio. 14. After referring to subsequent decis ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d of the case and proper application of mind. The applicant failed to demonstrate the order of sanction is suffering from non application of mind. 16. In such circumstances, we are of the view that the trial court should conduct a proper inquiry as to whether all the relevant materials were placed before the competent authority and whether the competent authority has referred to the same so as to form an opinion as to whether the same constituted an offence requiring sanction for prosecution. In that view of the matter, we set aside the impugned order passed by the High Court and also order dated 27.12.2004 passed in Special Case No. 12 of 2004 by the trial court and remit the matter to the Special Judge (P.C. Act, 1988), Ujjain, Madhya Pradesh. 17. Incidentally, we may also refer to the third point raised by the Appellant. It is the submission that the proceedings for prosecution in the case of the Commissioner and Administrator, who were the controlling officers of the Appellant, having been quashed, there is no point in continuing the trial in the case of the Appellant and it would only be an attempt in futility. This subsequent development may also be brought to the notic ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
