TMI Blog2015 (3) TMI 1317X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... chronological order. It is on a consideration of the totality of the facts including the manner in which the matter had been processed at different levels, that the Finance Minister eventually accorded his approval for grant of sanction on 8th August, 2009. The file, in fact, had not reached the Finance Minister at any earlier point of time. This Court has laid down that the validity of a Sanction Order, if one exists, has to be tested on the touchstone of the prejudice to the accused which is essentially a question of fact and, therefore, should be left to be determined in the course of the trial and not in the exercise of jurisdiction either Under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 or in a proceeding Under Article 226/ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rwal, Commissioner, Central Excise, Panvel and the Respondent No. 1 Ashok Kumar Aswal, who was then working as the Assistant Commissioner, Central Excise. 5. The complainant had alleged that a demand for bribe to settle certain central excise cases against two companies was made by the accused and that the same was paid and accepted. 6. It appears that the CBI submitted a report recommending launching of prosecution against both the Officers under different provisions of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as the Indian Penal Code ) as well as the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The CBI had also recommended regular departmental action against the said two officers. While the matter was under process, there appear ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ise and Customs, communicating the Sanction Order dated 21st October, 2009 to the Appellant, it has been mentioned that the earlier sanction order dated 12th August, 2009 and the corrigendum thereof dated 14th September, 2009 had been superseded. 8. The Delhi High Court on consideration of the matter took the view that the grant of sanction in the instant case by the Competent Authority was at the behest of the CBI and the same does not disclose a fair and independent application of mind. The High Court also took the view that the subsequent Sanction Order dated 21st October, 2009 was without the approval of the Sanctioning Authority. On the aforesaid two grounds, the High Court thought it proper to interdict the order dated 21st October ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a case where sanction has been granted and, therefore, on the authority of the decisions of this Court in Prakash Singh Badal and Anr. v. State of Punjab and Ors. 2007 (1) R.C.R. (Criminal) 1 : 2007 (1) Recent Apex Judgments (R.A.J.) 71 : (2007) 1 SCC 1 and Dinesh Kumar v. Chairman, Airport Authority of India and Anr. 2012(1) R.C.R. (Criminal) 100 : 2011 (6) Recent Apex Judgments (R.A.J.) 259 : (2012) 1 SCC 532 (Para 10), the High Court could not have interdicted the decision to grant sanction at the threshold. At best, the High Court could have left the matter for determination in the course of the trial. 11. Controverting the submissions advanced, Ms. Vibha Dutta Makhija, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Respondent No. 1 has st ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ance has been placed on a judgment of this Court in Mansukhlal Vithaldas Chauhan v. State of Gujarat (1997) 7 SCC 622 (Para 18 and 19). 12. We have considered the submissions advanced. We have also examined the records-in-original placed before us. Having perused the said records we do not find that at any earlier point of time sanction was refused by the Competent Authority for prosecution of the Respondent No. 1 - Ashok Kumar Aswal. There is no dispute that the Competent Authority to grant sanction in the present case is the Finance Minister. Before the matter reaches the Finance Minister, naturally, it has to be processed at different levels and what we find from the nothings in the Original File is that certain authorities at differe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of ` 50 lakhs as mentioned in the Sanction Order dated 12th August, 2009. The corrigendum also dispenses with certain provisions of the Indian Penal Code. The aforesaid exclusion of some of the specific provisions of the Indian Penal Code really works to the benefit of the Respondent No. 1 accused and not to his prejudice. If the corrigendum does not, as we are inclined to hold, affect the substratum of the Sanction granted initially on 8th/12th August, 2009 we will have no reason to take the view that initial Sanction Order has in any way been modified or altered so as to require the approval of the Finance Minister once again. Surely for correction of typographical errors the file need not have traveled all the way upto the Finance Minist ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
