Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 582 (MP)

Sheetal Prasad Patel v. State of M. P.

2014-05-13

M.C.GARG, S.K.SETH

body2014
ORDER 1. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner aggrieved of the sanction granted against him by the law department in Crime No.8/221/13, which has been registered against the petitioner for committing offence under section 13(1)(e) read with section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. 2. It has been submitted that the sanction granted in this case by the law department after the sanction was refused by the parent department, is not in accordance with law. 3. It is also his case that the document collected by the prosecution on the basis of search conducted against the petitioner at his premises without proper search warrant is also nullity. 4. In nutshell, it is submitted by the petitioner that filing of the charge-sheet against the petitioner after obtaining sanction from the law department would not be legal and, therefore, respondents be restrained from taking any further action in the matter against the petitioner. 5. Both submissions made on behalf of the petitioner, are not tenable. If, search has been conducted on the basis of legal search warrant, this Court is not competent authority to deal with the matter. At this juncture, when nothing is before this Court in the form of charge-sheet or any other proceedings arise out of filing of the charge-sheet, in so far as grant of sanction by the law department is concerned, this Court in its judgment in MCrC Nos.5232/2013 and 5240/2013 dated 6.8.2013 has upheld that the sanction granted by the law department is valid. 6. In so far as the validity or veracity is concerned, section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act is clear, which reads as under :- 19. 6. In so far as the validity or veracity is concerned, section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act is clear, which reads as under :- 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. (2) Where for any reason whatsoever any doubt arises as to whether the previous sanction as required under sub-section(1) should be given by the Central Government or the State Government or any other authority, such sanction shall be given by that Government or authority which would have been competent to remove the public servant from his office at the time when the offence was alleged to have been committed. (3) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974),— (a) no finding, sentence or order passed by a special Judge shall be reversed or altered by a Court in appeal, confirmation or revision on the ground of the absence of, or any error, omission or irregularity in, the sanction required under subsection (1), unless in the opinion of that Court, a failure of justice has in fact been occasioned thereby; (b) no Court shall stay the proceedings under this Act on the ground of any error, omission or irregularity in the sanction granted by the authority, unless it is satisfied that such error, omission or irregularity has resulted in a failure of justice; (c) no Court shall stay the proceedings under this Act on any other ground and no Court shall exercise the powers of revision in relation to any interlocutory order passed in any inquiry, trial, appeal or other proceedings. (4) In determining under sub-section (3) whether the absence of, or any error, omission or irregularity in, such sanction has occasioned or resulted in a failure of justice the Court shall have regard to the fact whether the objection could and should have been raised at any earlier stage in the proceedings. Explanation.— For the purposes of this section,— (a) error includes competency of the authority to grant sanction; (b) a sanction required for prosecution includes reference to any requirement that the prosecution shall be at the instance of a specified authority or with the sanction of a specified person or any requirement of a similar nature. 7. Thus, it is appropriate for the petitioner to question the veracity of the order granting sanction or the sanction itself would be, that the petitioner appears before the trial Court after filing of the charge-sheet and after receiving summons from the said Court. 8. It is, at this stage, the petitioner can also bring to the notice of the Court concerned about the defects if any, grant of sanction etc. and any such material if brought to the notice of the Court, then the Court can be taken into consideration of the shortcomings of section 19 of the Act at the appropriate stage. 9. With these observations, the present petition is dismissed.