Malkhan Singh vs Sub-Divisional Officer & Ors

This revision is directed against the order dated 2.1.2017 handed down by the Special Judge, C.B.I. Bhopal whereby Court rejected the application seeking discharge of the applicant on the ground of invalid sanction from charge under Section 13(1)(e) r/w Section 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

For the purposes of the present revision suffice it to say that applicant is a public servant. During the check period January 2006 to December 2012, he acquired assets disproportionate to his known sources of Income. C.B.I. registered a criminal case against the applicant. After investigation was over, sanction to launch prosecution was accorded and the charge sheet was filed in the Court of Special Judge, C.B.I. Bhopal. The Trial Court framed charge which was denied by the applicant.

To prove the sanction order, prosecution examined Director (Establishment) Railway Board, Sunil Kumar as PW-1. According to his deposition, sanction for prosecution was accorded by the Railway Minister and thereafter duly authenticated order was issued by the Director/E(O), Railway Board. Taking cue from his evidence, petitioner filed an application for discharge, which, as stated earlier, stood rejected by the order impugned. This is under challenge in this petition.

It is now well settled that an order granting permission is a purely administrative function and all material collected during investigation were placed before the Railway Minister, who, under the Rules of Business, is competent authority after recording satisfaction to issue the sanction order. In other words, only prima facie satisfaction of the authority is needed. The Court should not interfere with valid sanction adopting a hyper-technical view unless it is shown by relevant and cogent material that such action caused real prejudice to the public servant. It is also pertinent that while dealing with such question, the Court should not shut its eye to the rampant corruption in society.

Having gone through the sanction order, it is manifest that there was proper application of mind on the part of the competent authority before the sanction was accorded. The object underlying Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 is to ensure that a public servant does not suffer harassment on false, frivolous, concocted or unsubstantiated allegations. The decision of the competent authority is objective and consistent with the public interest. In Mansukhlal Vithaldas Chauhan v. State of Gujarat (1997) 7 SCC 622, the Supreme Court has held that Sanction is a weapon to ensure discouragement of frivolous and vexatious prosecution and is a safeguard for the innocent but not a shield for the guilty.

In view of foregoing discussion, we do not find any jurisdictional error with the order impugned calling for interference on our part. There is no merit and substance in the petition. Same stands dismissed.

Ordered accordingly.