Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 342 (MP)

S. S. Agnihotri v. State of M. P.

2015-03-25

A.M.KHANWILKAR, ALOK ARADHE

body2015
ORDER 1. This petition under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure essentially takes exception to the order passed by the trial Court dated 26th August, 2014 rejecting the petitioner’s application for holding that no proper sanction under section 19(1)(c) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 has been accorded against the petitioner and for which reason he should be acquitted. 2. The trial Court has rejected that application on the finding that the grievance of the petitioner about the validity of sanction can be considered at the appropriate stage in the trial. That is our understanding of the reason recorded by the trial Court and we are not in agreement with the criticism of the counsel for the petitioner that the issue about the validity of sanction has been decided by the trial Court, as such. 3. Reverting to the application on which the order came to be passed by the trial Court on 26th August, 2014 the only ground stated to doubt the validity of sanction accorded against the petitioner is that no sanction was produced before the trial Court. The documents produced were only communications and not a sanction order issued by the competent authority. 4. Whether the documents relied by the prosecution as sanction order were admissible and have been proved by the prosecution is obviously a matter which can be tested at the appropriate stage during the trial. To that extent, the opinion recorded by the trial Court in order dated 26th August, 2014, cannot be doubted. 5. The grievance of the petitioner before this Court, however, is founded on the exposition of the Supreme Court in the case of CBI v. Ashok Kumar Agarwal [ AIR 2014 SC 827 ]. In our opinion, the exposition in that case is in the context of the fact situation of that case. The Supreme Court in paragraphs 46 and 47 has restated the general rule as to when the question regarding validity of sanction should be considered. Paragraphs 46 and 47 of the said judgment reads thus :- “46. The most relevant issue involved herein is as at what stage the validity of sanction order can be raised. The issue is no more res integra. Paragraphs 46 and 47 of the said judgment reads thus :- “46. The most relevant issue involved herein is as at what stage the validity of sanction order can be raised. The issue is no more res integra. In Dinesh Kumar v. Chairman, Airport Authority of India and another, [ AIR 2012 SC 858 : 2011 AIR SCW 6834], this Court dealt with an issue and placing reliance upon the judgment in Prakash Singh Badal and another v. State of Punjab and others, [AIR 2007 SC 1274 : 2007 AIR SCW 1415], came to the conclusion as under : “13. In our view, having regard to the facts of the present case, now since cognizance has already been taken against the appellant by the trial Judge, the High Court cannot be said to have erred in leaving the question of validity of sanction open for consideration by the trial Court and giving liberty to the appellant to raise the issue concerning validity of sanction order in the course of trial. Such course is in accord with the decision of this Court in Prakash Singh Badal…” 47. Undoubtedly, the stage of examining the validity of sanction is during the trial and we do not propose to say that the validity should be examined during the stage of inquiry or at pre-trial stage.” 6. Having said this, the Court went on to decide the controversy which was brought before it on the basis of indisputable facts. In that, the statements of 28 witnesses were not even mentioned in the SP’s report which was the basis for grant of sanction. Similarly, no reference was made to the 938 documents and also to the Income Tax returns and assessment orders in the SP’s report. This was the fact found by the Supreme Court in paragraph 42 of the decision and on that basis it proceeded to answer the controversy in favour of the accused and against the prosecution in paragraph 48 of the said judgment. 7. In the present case, as aforesaid, the application filed by the petitioner, made limited grievance that the document produced before the trial Court as sanction order, cannot be treated as a sanction order much less issued by the competent authority. No other grievance was made before the trial Court. 7. In the present case, as aforesaid, the application filed by the petitioner, made limited grievance that the document produced before the trial Court as sanction order, cannot be treated as a sanction order much less issued by the competent authority. No other grievance was made before the trial Court. We cannot permit the petitioner to agitate new contentions before this Court for the first time that too which may require scrutiny of the factual position. If the petitioner is of the opinion that the exposition in the case of CBI v. Ashok Kumar Agarwal is squarely applicable to the case of the petitioner, must substantiate the material facts on the basis of which the trial Court can examine the grievance as was done in the reported case. Except this, nothing more is required to be said in this petition. 8. The petitioner is free to apply before the trial Court pointing out specific ground which may attract the legal position expounded by the Supreme Court in the case of CBI v. Ashok Kumar Agrawal. 9. We are not expressing any opinion on the merits of the controversy which will have to be decided by the trial Court independently. The petitioner may take out that application within one week from today, failing which the trial Court will be free to proceed with the matter in accordance with law. If the petitioner were to file any application within one week from today, we have no manner of doubt the trial Court would deal with that application expeditiously and in accordance with law. 10. Petition disposed of accordingly.