Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2002 DIGILAW 565 (MP)

R. D. AHERWAR v. SPECIAL POLICE ESTABLISHMENT

2002-06-24

ARUN MISHRA

body2002
ARUN MISHRA, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioner seeks the relief to quash the prosecution of the petitioner in special case No. 9/98 and further seeks to quash the sanction for prosecution Annexure P. 3 pending before Special Judge, Bhopal, against the petitioner for offences under Sections 13 (1) (d) (ii) (iii) and Section 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and Sections 120-B and 37 of the IPC. ( 2 ) THE petitioner alleges that he was Additional Secretary on 11/08/1995. An order was passed by the former Minister Shri B. R. Yadav exempting 7. 50 acres of land to the land owners from scheme No. 54 of the Indore Development Authority. The petitioner was present during the hearing of the parties on 20-2-97 held by former Minister, Shri Rajendra Kumar Singh and recorded the minutes as per the order of the Minister and communicated such decision vide letter dated 24-2-97. The petitioner submitted a proposal on 28-2-1997 to the Secretary that the compliance of directions issued by the State Government is delayed by the Indore Development Authority and proposed direction to the Indore Development Authority (for short 'ida') for immediate compliance and after due approval issued direction to the IDA on 5-3-97. The petitioner issued clarification to the IDA on 20-3-97 instructing that plots of 7. 50 acres be released to land owners, their family members and their nominated persons. ( 3 ) THE petitioner was retired on 31-3-97 from the post of Additional Secretary to the Govt. of M. P. in Housing and Environment Department. The challan was filed on 4-7-98 in the Court of Special Judge, Bhopal, Petitioner avers that the entire proceedings are illegal, arbitrary and without authority of law. The petitioner only performed official duties and functions assigned to him as Govt. servant and no case of criminal misconduct is made out. The Special Judge took cognizance of the offences. Petitioner submits that the cognizance of offence under Sections 120-B and 37 of the IPC could not be taken without prior sanction under Section 197 of the Cr. P. C. The Additional Secretary, Law Department, respondent No. 2 granted sanction for prosecution against the petitioner vide order dated 26-12-98. The challan filed against the petitioner is illegal and be quashed. Petitioner submits that the cognizance of offence under Sections 120-B and 37 of the IPC could not be taken without prior sanction under Section 197 of the Cr. P. C. The Additional Secretary, Law Department, respondent No. 2 granted sanction for prosecution against the petitioner vide order dated 26-12-98. The challan filed against the petitioner is illegal and be quashed. Petitioner further submits that so far as prosecution of the two former Ministers Shri B. R. Yadav and Shri Rajendra Kumar Singh is concerned, the matter was placed before Council of Ministers for sanction of prosecution. The Council of Ministers found that there is nothing to infer that both Shri B. R. Yadav and Shri Rajendra Kumar Singh were acting together in pursuit of common end and with other persons and there was no meeting of mind nor common intention and it was found that ingredients for attracting Section 120-B of the IPC were not available. However, his Excellency the Hon'ble Governor of M. P. disagreed with the decision of the Council of Ministers and accorded sanction for prosecution against the two former Ministers by order dated 23-9-98. The order passed by His Excellency, the Hon'ble Governor was challenged by two former Ministers in W. P. No. 4924/98 and W. P. No. 4925/98. The Hon'ble High Court as per order dated 30-1-99 allowed both the petitions and quashed the sanction for prosecution. ( 4 ) PETITIONER submits that the erstwhile Town Improvement Trust, Indore, predecessor of IDA framed scheme No. 54 and total 640. 37 acres of land was included in this scheme. An area of 22. 56 acres was also included in this scheme and was acquired in the year 1973 vide notification dated 9-11-73 published u/s. 71 (1) of the Town Improvement Trust Act, 1960. The Town Improvement Trust took possession of the land of Smt. Sohan Kumari Shankhla. She applied for exemption of land from the scheme pursuant to which 5. 00 acres of land was exempted for construction of the hospital on certain terms and conditions which were not followed by the landowner, hence exemption lapsed w. e. f. 13-5-77. The Town Improvement Trust, Indore was dissolved by the State Govt. She applied for exemption of land from the scheme pursuant to which 5. 00 acres of land was exempted for construction of the hospital on certain terms and conditions which were not followed by the landowner, hence exemption lapsed w. e. f. 13-5-77. The Town Improvement Trust, Indore was dissolved by the State Govt. and Indore Development Authority was constituted under Section 38 of the M. P. Nagar Tatha Gram Nivesh Adhiniyam, 1973, the landowner Smt. Sohan Kumari Shankhla and her legal heirs had been trying by various Courts proceedings, to get the land exempted from the scheme on the basis of the exemptions of land granted by the IDA and the State Govt. in some other cases. The legal heirs of Smt. Sohan Kumari Shankhla approached the State Govt. also for exemption of their 7. 50 acres for which exemption is sought. An area of 4. 32 out of 7. 50 acres was already allotted by the IDA to 328 members of Whole Sale Kirana Merchants Association and Tea Merchants Association in 1988 and 25% and 10% of premium was received by the IDA and remaining area of 3. 18 acres was still lying unallotted and unutilised. As soon as an area of 4. 32 acres, out of the land 7. 50 acres of land owners in this case was allotted to Whole Sale Kirana Merchant's Association and Tea Merchants Association in 1988, the land owners filed a W. P. No. 1181/99 before Indore Bench of this Court and stay order was passed to maintain status-quo. No allottees could fully utilize or develop the allotted land and members of Tea Merchants Association could not get the possession of allotted land. The petitioner submitted his note dated 18-7-95 to the Principal Secretary of the Department because the Additional Secretary was required to put up each and every file to the Principal Secretary and not to put up directly to the Minister as there was no work distribution between the Principal Secretary and the Addl. Secretary. The note-sheet submitted by the petitioner was placed before Shri B. R. Yadav, Minister of Environment. Secretary. The note-sheet submitted by the petitioner was placed before Shri B. R. Yadav, Minister of Environment. On 23-7-95 Shri B. R. Yadav passed a detailed order of which substance is that remaining land of land owners lying unallotted/unutilised be exempted and released to the land owners/applicants and on area equal to the area allotted to the members of Whole Sale Kirana Merchant's Association and Tea Merchant's Association be released to the land owners in scheme No. 54 itself and if not available in scheme No. 54 then in any adjacent scheme on no profit and no loss basis if the land owners so agree and entire long standing problem be resolved in this way. Shri B. R. Yadav marked the file to the Principal Secretary who agreed with the order passed by Shri B. R. Yadav and marked the file to the petitioner who issued letter/direction to the IDA on 11-8-95. An application was presented by the land owners to Shri B. R. Yadav on 11-9-95 for correction of area to be released and Shri B. R. Yadav passed an order on the application itself to issue necessary corrections and also directed the petitioner to do so and the Department after getting approval of the Secretary issued a correction letter on 30-9-98 Annexure P. 7 under the signature of Under Secretary whereby the area of land to be released was corrected from 7. 00 acres to 7. 50 acres. ( 5 ) IN this writ petition, further averment is, the entire misconduct proceedings instituted against the petitioner is wholly illegal, arbitrary and mala fide. No offence whatsoever has been prima facie made out against the petitioner even taking into consideration the entirety of the allegations contained in the charge-sheet. In the facts and circumstances, filing of the charge-sheet against the petitioner is not only an act without authority of law, but also constitutes gross abuse of process of law, jeopardising the petitioner's fundamental right guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner is charged with an offence under Section 120-B of the IPC. having allegedly entered into a criminal conspiracy. As per the case framed by the respondents, it is apparent that the main and substantive allegation and the offence alleged are against the two erstwhile Ministers, who were the decision making authority. The sanction has been quashed by this High Court. having allegedly entered into a criminal conspiracy. As per the case framed by the respondents, it is apparent that the main and substantive allegation and the offence alleged are against the two erstwhile Ministers, who were the decision making authority. The sanction has been quashed by this High Court. There is no basis or justification for prosecuting the petitioner on charge of criminal conspiracy. There is absolutely no evidence of any prior concert or meeting of mind of accused persons. There is no material prima facie to indicate dishonest intention, motive or correct design. The acts and omissions of the petitioners are protected by virtue of section 83 of the M. P. Nagar Tatha Gram Nivesh Adhiniyam, 1973 and as there was no want of good faith. ( 6 ) IN the return filed by the respondents it has been contended that erstwhile Town Improvement Trust, Indore, acquired land bearing Khasra Nos. 257 and 259 comprised of 22. 56 acres of land belonging to one Shri Ashok Kumar Jain and his mother Smt. Sohan Kumari Shankhala. Thereafter Smt. Sohan Kumari Shankhala made an application to the Chairman of the Town Improvement Trust, Indore, for release of five acres of land out of the land falling in scheme No. 54 for purposes of construction of a hospital and nursing home for her son. The Chairman was inclined to release five acres of land on the condition that she executed an agreement that she would utilise land for the purposes expressed by her, which proposal was accepted by Smt. Sohan Kumari Shankhala and she executed an agreement on 20-8-1966, Smt. Sohan Kumari Shankhala wrote a letter on 14-6-72 expressing her helplessness and total incapability to construct a hospital and prayed for allotment of the land to the members of her family with permission to use the same for commercial purposes. This proposal was rejected by the Trust vide memo dated 17-7-1972. On publication of Notification under Section 71 (1) of the Madhya Pradesh Town Improvement Trust Act, 1950, published in the State Gazette dated 9-11-1973, the area as notified thereunder including the land vested in the Town Improvement Trust free from all encumbrances. A civil suit for injunction and declaration of the 5 acres of land was filed against the Trust and others in the Court of 3rd Civil Judge, Class II, Indore. A civil suit for injunction and declaration of the 5 acres of land was filed against the Trust and others in the Court of 3rd Civil Judge, Class II, Indore. Application for temporary injunction was made, which having been rejected, an appeal was filed, which too was rejected by the Addl. District Judge, Indore. The civil suit was ultimately dismissed by the Civil Judge on 4-12-88 as not pressed. The Civil suit No. 366a/1979 filed by Ashok Kumar was also dismissed for want of prosecution. After dismissal of civil suit Ashok Kumar Jain and others filed W. P. No. 1181/88 (Vijay Kumar v. Indore Development Authority, Indore ). In writ petition No. 1181/88 this Court directed on 13-5-96 that the respondents shall take decision in pursuance of the letter dated 11-8-1998 in accordance with law within a period of two months and disposed of the petition. Another writ petition No. 1437/96 was filed by Vijay Kumar, Ashok Kumar and others in which prayer for compliance of order dated 11-8-98 was made. This writ petition was dismissed as not pressed on 6-3-1997. The respondents submit that the legal position is respect of the land boils down in this that is had been acquired by the Indore Town Improvement Trust and it vested in the Trust free from all encumbrances and all that the claimants/land owners were entitled to compensation in accordance with law. After coming into force of the Madhya Pradesh Nagar Tatha Gram Nivesh Adhiniyam, 1973, Town and Country Development Authority known as IDA was established in the city of Indore u/s. 38 of the Adhiniyam. As a result of constitution of the Development Authority, all assets and liabilities of the Town Improvement Trust became the property of the IDA u/s. 87 (1) of the Adhiniyam. The land in question became the property of the Indore Development Authority and then it was only the IDA which could dispose of the same in accordance with the Madhya Pradesh Nagar Tatha Gram Nivesh Viksit Bhumiyon, Griho, Bhavano Tatha Anya Sanrachnao Ka Vyayan Niyam, 1975. There was no power much less any authority or any control given to the StateGovernment for dealing with or disposing of the land in any manner whatsoever. There was no power much less any authority or any control given to the StateGovernment for dealing with or disposing of the land in any manner whatsoever. The respondents submit that development of most of the land acquired for scheme No. 54 had been completed and plots were allotted by the IDA the natural corollary is that in fact the Govt. had no power at all to release the land in question or to allot the same to the sons and daughters of late Smt. Sohan Kumar Shankhala. The land owners moved an application on 6-3-1995 before Shri B. R. Yadav for release of the land from the scheme on the basis of the said agreement dated 20-8-66. Shri B. R. Yadav issued an order on 3-3-95 to the Chief Executive Officer of IDA directing him to examine the application for release of land and invited pointwise comments. The Chief Executive Officer sent his detailed report to the Secretary, Environment and Housing Department wherein it was made clear that it was not possible to release the land in question from the scheme. ( 7 ) THE respondents further submit that the petitioner Shri R. D. Ahirwar was the then Additional Secretary in the Department of Housing and Environment. He in his note dated 18-7-85 opined that it being a disputed matter and subjudice, it was not proper to pass an order and proposed to call for the copies of the plaint, writ petitions and various orders etc. The order was passed on 23-7-95 rejecting 7 acres of land. The land owner Shri Ashok Kumar made another application on 22-9-95 correcting his earlier application wherein request for release of 7 acres of land was increased to 7. 5 acres which prayer was readily accepted and an order was passed on 23-9-95 directing the release of 7. 5 acres of land instead of 7 acres. The land owner Shri Ashok Kumar made another application on 22-9-95 correcting his earlier application wherein request for release of 7 acres of land was increased to 7. 5 acres which prayer was readily accepted and an order was passed on 23-9-95 directing the release of 7. 5 acres of land instead of 7 acres. ( 8 ) RESPONDENT further contends that the petitioner with a few senior lawyers of Indore in connection with the pending contempt petition No. 47/96 and on the basis of their advice, put up notes on 16-10-96, 17-11-96 and 22-11-96 proposing to vacate the Government's stay order dated 13-9-96 passed by the then Minister Shri Rajendra Kumar Singh, staying operation of land released by the order dated 11-8-98, Shri Rajendra Kumar Singh rejected all the notes and directed that the High Court be apprised of all the facts and request for extension of time to enable the Govt. to take the decision in the matter be made. It is further submitted by the respondents that petitioner wrote to the Chief Executive Officer of the Indore Development Authority vide memo dated 24-2-97 to comply with the order passed by the Minister by 28-2-97 and inform the compliance thereof to the Government. The respondents submit that a complaint was made to the Lokayukt with regard to the release of 7. 50 acres of land 'out' of scheme No. 54 of the IDA by State Govt. vide order dated 11-8-95, followed by another order dated 24-2-97 in favour of the sons of Smt. Sohan Kumari Shankhla. In the complaint, it was alleged that the orders passed for release of land by Shri B. R. Yadav, the then Housing and Environment Minister, Shri Rajendra Kumar Singh, Minister for Housing and Environment and the petitioner Shri R. D. Ahirwar, the then Additional Secretary, by corrupt and illegal means with dishonest intention to obtain for themselves valuable things for pecuniary advantage and by grant of release order conferring valuable and pecuniary advantages to the persons concerned at a nominal price. The respondents further submit that Shri B. R. Yadav and Shri Rajendra Kumar Singh, the then Minister of Housing and Environment filed writ petition No. 2434/98 for quashing of the prosecution launched by the respondents. The respondents further submit that Shri B. R. Yadav and Shri Rajendra Kumar Singh, the then Minister of Housing and Environment filed writ petition No. 2434/98 for quashing of the prosecution launched by the respondents. This Court found as under :"on scrutinising the FIR and materials so far collected in a studied manner, it is difficult to accept the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the FIR and the materials collected do not disclose an offence in terms of Section 15 of the Act. May be, the petitioner may be in a position to explain whole situation at the appropriate stage but the facts as exposited do not warrant any quashment of the prosecution on the ground that it does not by any stretch of imagination conceive the concept of attempt in any eventuality. Thus, from the aforesaid discussion it is irrefragably held that the present case is not one where this Court can come to the conclusion that the allegations in the FIR and the material collected so far, do not disclose any offence against the petitioner, Whether the allegations constitute an offence under Sections 13 (1) (d), 13 (2) and 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act and Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code can be agitated by the petitioner at the appropriate stage. " ( 9 ) W. P. No. 2434/98 was dismissed on 3-2-98, petitioner had moved an application on 2-3-2002 Annexure R/15 before the Special Judge for discharging his from the offence under Section 120-B of the IPC. The Special Judge directed that the application would be considered at the time of framing of charges. Challan Annexure R. 16 indicates commission of offence. ( 10 ) AS against the decision of this Court in W. P. Nos. 4924/98 and 4925/98 L. P. As. have been filed. Furthermore Indore Bench of this Court in W. P. No. 1181/88 never adjudicated the rights of the parties nor gave any positive direction to release the land. ( 11 ) RESPONDENT further contends that the petitioner cannot take shelter under the orders of the Minister or approval of the Principal Secretary. It was a case of criminal conspiracy, to which he was a party. ( 11 ) RESPONDENT further contends that the petitioner cannot take shelter under the orders of the Minister or approval of the Principal Secretary. It was a case of criminal conspiracy, to which he was a party. The respondents submit that the matter is pending before the Special Judge, where the entire investigation done by the Superintendent of Police will be scrutinised at the stage of framing of the charge. Thus, the writ petition is not an appropriate remedy. ( 12 ) IN additional return it has been pointed out that petitioner is somehow trying to dig deep into the matter fishing out something or the other. It is a matter of evidence and the prosecution will lead evidence as appropriate stage of case to substantiate the allegations forming part of the challan. The conduct of the petitioner as tried to be exhibited in this part of the petition is not that simple and innocent as he says that he was duty bound to comply with the directions of the ministers and superior authorities. He was an IAS officer working as Additional Secretary in the Department of Housing and Environment; he was obligated and accountable to the State Govt. and should have brought on record the factual as also legal position as obtaining in the case. He cannot be allowed to slip away by making a statement that he did not take any decision of his own and that it was the Ministers' decision. He was a party to the decision and was equally accountable for abusing his authority along with others. A preliminary enquiry was made by the legal adviser of the Lokayukt. In order to find out a prima facie case before directing the Special Police Establishment, the Lokayukta is enjoined under the Adhiniyam to make a preliminary enquiry and it is only after making the preliminary enquiry that a decision is taken whether or not the particular person against whom the enquiry was made is at all involved. The Legal Adviser of the Lokayukta made the preliminary enquiry in the matter and found prima facie, the petitioner, the ministers as also other officers guilty of the offences. The matter was placed before the Lokayukta, who also accepted the findings rendered by the Legal Advisor in the preliminary enquiry. The Legal Adviser of the Lokayukta made the preliminary enquiry in the matter and found prima facie, the petitioner, the ministers as also other officers guilty of the offences. The matter was placed before the Lokayukta, who also accepted the findings rendered by the Legal Advisor in the preliminary enquiry. The report of Lokayukta speaks for itself and finds the petitioner equally guilty of conspiring with the two Ministers, an offence under Section 120-B of the IPC. No challenge can be made to the preliminary enquiry made by the Legal Adviser of the Lokayukta or the order passed by the Lokayukta. It is incorrect to say that the preliminary enquiry report of the legal adviser as well as the order of Lokayukta does not disclose any material whatsoever constituting any offence connecting the petitioner. It is incorrect to say that the two former Ministers Shri B. R. Yadav and Shri Rajendra Kumar Singh are not being prosecuted as a result of the order passed by this Court on 30-1-99 in W. P. No. 4924/98 and 4925/98. It is submitted that in those two writ petitions, the two former Ministers have challenged the sanction granted by the Hon'ble Governor of the State for their prosecution. This Court ruled that the Hon'ble governor cannot act without the aid and advice of the council of the Ministers under Article163 of the Constitution of India and, therefore, the sanction granted without the aid and advice of the council of Ministers was illegal and in this view of the matter the sanction was quashed. That does not however mean that the two former Ministers are not being prosecuted. The respondents submit that it is not the official duty of the public servant to extend undue benefit at the cost of the public exchequer in furtherance of or in the discharge of his official duties. The act of the petitioner caused loss to the public exchequer to the tune of crores of rupees as found by the Lokayukta in its order. It is denied that the respondents did not obtain prior sanction of the competent authority u/s. 197 of the Cr. P. C. for prosecution of the petitioner. It is not necessary to obtain sanction either prior to or on the date of filing of the challan. Sanction could always be obtained after filing of the challan. The sanction was obtained vide order dated 26-12-98. P. C. for prosecution of the petitioner. It is not necessary to obtain sanction either prior to or on the date of filing of the challan. Sanction could always be obtained after filing of the challan. The sanction was obtained vide order dated 26-12-98. It is submitted that only challan has been filed against the petitioner and others and no further proceedings were taken by the Court before the sanction order dated 26-12-98 was filed before the Court. It is specifically mentioned that the petitioner had retired before the challan was filed; no sanction was required for prosecution for the offences punishable u/s. 13 (1) (d)/13 (2) read with Section 15 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. However, sanction u/s. 197 of Cr. P. C. was required only for prosecution of offence u/s. 120-B of the IPC. Thus there was absolutely no bar in taking cognizance of the offence against the petitioner for offences punishable under Prevention of Corruption Act. Therefore taking of cognizance by the special Judge on 6-7-98 for offences under Prevention of Corruption Act is legal and further proceedings in respect of offence under Section 120-B, IPC also cannot be challenged because sanction under Section 197, Cr. P. C. has also been obtained. ( 13 ) BEFORE adverting to various submissions, it is apparent that in the sanction order Annexure P. 3 it has been clearly mentioned that the petitioner was involved in the criminal conspiracy and without any order by the Ministers, he forwarded the note. In the facts and circumstances of the case, no allotment could be made by no stretch of any rule or provision of law or instructions, the land could not be ordered to be given back to some other person as may be suggested by the legal representatives. The note-sheet dated 20-3-1997 was submitted by Shri R. D. Ahirwar, the petitioner. The note dated 20-3-1997 was without approval of competent person and land could not be allotted and the note was forwarded by Shri Ahirwar which was clearly impermissible. It is apparent that petitioner was clearly involved in placing the note-sheet. There is enough material on record against him and prosecution cannot be said to be baseless. The FIR discloses commission of offence. It is apparent that petitioner was clearly involved in placing the note-sheet. There is enough material on record against him and prosecution cannot be said to be baseless. The FIR discloses commission of offence. ( 14 ) COUNSEL for the petitioner has submitted that in view of the decision of this Court in the case of two Ministers; quashing the sanctions, the writ of the petitioner should also be allowed. The case of Rajendra Kumar Singh and B. R. Yadav stands on different footing. The question involved in that case was that whether the Act has to be done on the advice of Council of Ministers which is not the question involved in the present writ petition. Thus, the petitioner is not entitled to draw any benefit from the order passed by this Court in the case of Shri Rajendra Kumar Singh and Shri B. R. Yadav is of no relevance. ( 15 ) THE writ petition No. 2434/98 filed by Shri Rajendra Kumar Singh was dismissed by this Court on 3-7-1998 on merits on the ground that prima facie from the FIR it could not be said that no offence has been made out. This Court held even against Ministers the offence was made out from FIR and they could be prosecuted. Thus submission of petitioner that FIR does not disclose commission of offence falls down. Considering the FIR in the instant case in W. P. No. 2434/98 it was held by esteemed brother Justice Shri Dipak Misra that :10. "in view of the aforesaid and on consideration of various orders passed by the petitioner and reiteration by him by order dated 24-2-97 directing the Indore Development Authority to accept the proposal of the land owner dated 17-7-96 claiming the developed plots in the name of the nominees and the ultimate order passed on 31-3-97 approving the proposal on the note-sheet cannot be said, at this stage, that there was total absence of intention. May be the petitioner would be in a position to explain it at the appropriate stage but at present this Court is not in a position to opine that there was no intention at the time of passing of the orders. 13. May be the petitioner would be in a position to explain it at the appropriate stage but at present this Court is not in a position to opine that there was no intention at the time of passing of the orders. 13. Thus, from the aforesaid discussion it can be irrefragably held that the present case is not one, where this Court can come to the conclusion that the allegations in the FIR and the material collected so far, do not disclose any offence against the petitioner. Whether the allegations constitute an offence under Sections 13 (1) (d), 13 (2) and 15 of Prevention of Corruption Act and Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code can be agitated by the petitioner at the appropriate stage. It would also depend upon in respect of what offence charge-sheet would be filed. Needless to emphasize, it would be open to the petitioner to call in question the propriety of the charge-sheet at the appropriate stage before the competent forum as per the established parameters of law. It is hereby made clear that the competent Court shall not be influenced by any of the observations made in this sorder. " ( 16 ) THE submission raised that facts and circumstances of the case mentioned in FIR does not constitute an offence, is not acceptable. They are disputed questions of facts which cannot be decided. The case does not fall with the parameter of the guide-lines issued by the Apex Court in Bhajanlal's case. ( 17 ) THE Apex Court in State of Haryana v. Bhajanlal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 : (1992 Cri LJ 527) has laid down the following guidelines for making interference (at page 552 of Cri LJ) :" (1) Where the allegations made in the first information report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused. (2) Where the allegations in the first information report and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156 (1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155 (2) of the Code. (2) Where the allegations in the first information report and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156 (1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155 (2) of the Code. (3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused. (4) Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155 (2) of the Code. (5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. (6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code of the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party. (7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge. " ( 18 ) THE similar view was taken by the Apex Court in Mrs. Rupan Deol Bajaj v. Kanwar Pal Singh Gill, AIR 1996 SC 309 : 1996 Cri LJ 381. ( 19 ) THE submission that sanction suffers with non-application of mind, is also not acceptable. In the sanction order facts are mentioned, material was perused, reasons have been given, thus, the sanction cannot be quashed on the ground of non-application of mind. The submission that before filing the challan, the sanction should have been obtained, is not acceptable. Since the sanction has been obtained after filing of the challan, sanction has to be adjudged on its own validity. There is no infirmity in the sanction granted. The submission that before filing the challan, the sanction should have been obtained, is not acceptable. Since the sanction has been obtained after filing of the challan, sanction has to be adjudged on its own validity. There is no infirmity in the sanction granted. ( 20 ) IN State of Maharashtra v. Ishwar Piraji Kalpatri, AIR 1996 SC 722 : 1996 Cri LJ 1127, it was held that sanction order has to be seen with pragmatic view when the order prima facie shows that there has been application of mind and that material on record has been examined. It is not necessary even to make the statement while according sanction. That authority had personally scrutinised the file and had arrived at required satisfaction. Satisfaction must be apparent from the sanction granted which is apparent in the instant case. Sanctioning authority had satisfied itself while granting the sanction that satisfaction has been reached on the basis of material on record. ( 21 ) IN State of Kerala v. Padmanabhan Nair, AIR 1999 SC 2405 : (1999 Cri LJ 3696) it was held by the Apex Court that when the charge against the Govt. servant under Sections 406 and 409 read with Section 120-B of the IPC sanction under Section 197 of the Cr. P. C. is a condition precedent for launching the prosecution is equally fallacious. The decision of the Apex Court contained in Shreekantiah Ramayya Munnipally v. State of Bombay, AIR 1955 SC 287 : (1955 Cri LJ 857) was followed. In the instant case charge is under Section 37 read with Section 120-B of the IPC. Thus, the ratio of the aforesaid cases is clearly attracted to the instant case. ( 22 ) FOR the foregoing reasons, I find no infirmity in the sanction. ( 23 ) WRIT petition is without merit and is dismissed. Petition dismissed. .