Kamatchi vs The State

R.S. Ramanathan, J.—This petition is filed to quash the Special Case No. 2 of 2013 pending on the file of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Perambalur, against the petitioner for the offence under Sections 7 and 13(ii) r/w 13(i)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the Sanctioning Authority has not applied his mind and therefore the sanction is vitiated and on that ground, the case has to be quashed. He submitted that the prosecution case as spoken to by P.W. 1 is that the petitioner demanded Rs. 1000/- for issuing the Certificate and the complainant went to the Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Department and gave a complaint and after completing the formalities, he came to the office of the petitioner, where P.W.1 was asked to come by the petitioner. In the office of the petitioner, the petitioner was not available and the complainant was directed to come to the Collector Office by the petitioner and therefore, the de facto complainant along with the official witness went to Collector office, where the petitioner demanded the money and the de facto complainant gave that amount to the petitioner and thereafter the petitioner was arrested. He, therefore, submitted that according to the prosecution case, the amount was paid in the Collector Office and not in the office of the petitioner. But in the Sanction Order, it has been stated that the petitioner reiterated the earlier demand of bribe and accepted Rs. 1000/- from the complainant on 06.07.2011 between 13.00 hours and 13.15 hours, in her office. He therefore submitted that the Sanctioning Authority has not applied his mind and according to the Sanctioning Authority, the bribe was given in the office of the petitioner, whereas the prosecution case is that the amount was given in the Collector office and on that ground, the case is liable to be quashed. He also relied on a judgment reported in S. Krishnamurthy Vs. State, Inspector of Police, Vigilance and Corruption, City II, Madras - 6, , in support of his case.

On the other hand, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that the Sanctioning Authority has stated in the Sanction Order that in the office of the petitioner, the amount was demanded and received by the petitioner and the case has already been charge-sheeted and trial has also commenced and at this stage, the case cannot be quashed and the Sanctioning Authority has got a chance to explain the circumstances or the reasons for stating so in the Sanction Order in the evidence and therefore, at this stage, the criminal case cannot be quashed. In support of his contention, he relied on a judgment reported in (2008) 1 MLJ (Crl.) 1269 (S. Irudhayam Vs State, rep. by Inspector of Police, Vigilance and Anti-corruption, Madurai Detachment, Madurai).

Therefore, it has to be seen whether the case is liable to be quashed on the ground of non-application of mind by the Sanctioning Authority in granting sanction.

As stated supra, as per the statement of witnesses and also charge sheet, the accused/petitioner herein was at her seat in the District Social Welfare Office, Collectorate, Perambalur and she ascertained from the de facto complainant whether he had brought the amount of Rs. 1000/- as demanded by her and the de facto complainant gave Rs. 1000/- to her and she received the same. Therefore, it is seen from the statement of witnesses and the charge-sheet that the amount was given at the Collector office to the petitioner. In the Sanction Order, it has been stated that the amount was given in her office. Whether the office mentioned in the Sanction Order is the office of the petitioner, viz. her office at Panchayat Union or as stated in the charge sheet in the District Social Welfare Office, Collectorate, Perambalur has to be ascertained. It is stated in the charge sheet that the petitioner was at her seat in the said Social Welfare Office, Perambalur and therefore, at this stage, it cannot be stated whether the Sanctioning Authority referred to the office at Collectorate or the office of the petitioner at Panchayat Union.

In these circumstances, the judgment relied on by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor has to be looked into. In the said judgment, the learned Judge considered the scope of sanction by referring to the Supreme Court judgment reported in (2008) 1 MLJ (Crl.) 1269 and held as follows:

In State by Police Inspector Vs. Sri T. Venkatesh Murthy, , the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as follows:

Clause (b) of sub-section (3) shows that no Court shall stay the proceedings under the 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 a failure of justice.

Sub-Section (4) postulates that in determining under sub-section (3) whether the absence of, or any error, omission or irregularity in the 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.

Similar view has been expressed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in C.S. Krishnamurthy Vs. State of Karnataka , wherein, it has been held as follows:

The sanction order should speak for itself and in case the facts do not so appear, it should be proved by leading evidence that all the particulars were placed before the sanctioning authority for due application of mind. But, when the sanction order itself is eloquent enough, then in that case only formal evidence has to be produced by the sanctioning authority or by any other evidence that the sanction was accorded by a competent person with due application of mind in case the sanction speaks for itself then the satisfaction of the sanctioning authority is apparent by reading the order. When the sanction itself is very expressive, then in that case, the argument that particular material was not properly placed before the sanctioning authority for according sanction and the sanctioning authority has not applied its mind becomes unsustainable.

A close scrutiny of the above two judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court would make it abundantly clear that normally, the sanction order should be so exhaustive to reflect the application of mind on the part of the sanctioning authority. If it is not so exhaustive, to indicate the application of mind, even then the sanctioning authority, as a witness can speak about the materials placed before him and about the satisfaction arrived at by him. Therefore, simply by reading the sanctioning order, one cannot say that the sanctioning authority had non-application of mind while issuing sanction order. Thus, the prosecution cannot be quashed at its threshold itself on the ground of defects in the sanction order without affording opportunity to the sanctioning authority to let in oral evidence.

In the judgment reported in 1996 1 L.W. (Crl.) 95 cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Judge has stated the importance of sanction and in that judgment, it has not been stated where the sanction can be challenged in the absence of any evidence given by the Sanctioning Authority during trial. As a matter of fact, in that case, the said observation was made by the learned Judge in an appeal after conviction.

According to me, in the judgment reported in (2008) 1 MLJ (Crl.) 1269, law has been succinctly laid down and held that the prosecution cannot be quashed at its threshold itself on the ground of defects in the sanction order without affording opportunity to the sanctioning authority to let in oral evidence. I concur with the opinion of the learned Judge and in the absence of any opportunity given to the Sanctioning Authority to explain the reason for stating so in the Sanction Order, the criminal case cannot be quashed at this stage. Therefore, this Criminal Original Petition stands dismissed. However, it is open to the petitioner to challenge the Sanction Order, after evidence is let in during trial. Consequently, connected M.P. No. 1 of 2014 is closed.