Vinod Kumar Singh vs The State Of Bihar & Ors.

The present writ petition has been filed on behalf of the petitioner seeking the following reliefs :

Briefly stated, facts leading to the filing of the instant writ petition in a nutshell are that on 07.06.2018, the petitioner was posted as Cooperative Extension Officer, Amas and he filed a written complaint before the SHO, Amas Police Station alleging an act of embezzlement of funds by one Shankar Dayal Singh, President, Jhari PACS. On the written complaint made by the petitioner, Amas P.S. Case No. 137 of 2018 under sections 420, 409, and 120B of the IPC was instituted. In the written complaint given to the SHO, it has been alleged that the accused Shankar Dayal Singh, the then President, Jhari PACS purchased 3627 quintal of paddy from 36 farmers in the Kharif marketing in the year 2017-18. But he deposited with the SFC, Gaya only 1350 quintal of Custom Milled Rice (CMR) which was equivalent to 2015 quintal of paddy. It was further alleged that Shankar Dayal Singh sold 1612 quintal of paddy in open market and embezzled an amount of Rs. 24,98,600/-. The matter was investigated and the Investigating Officer also found the involvement of the petitioner/informant in the said case. The petitioner was arrested on 13-04-2022 and subsequently on 19-05-2022, he was granted regular bail by the learned trial court. Chart sheet was filed on 17-10-2021 under section 406, 409, 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120B, 34 of the IPC against coaccused Shankar Dayal Singh and the investigation continued against the petitioner/informant. After completing the investigation, the IO filed chart sheet bearing chart sheet number 74/2022 dated 17-05-2022 under section 406, 409, 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120B,34 of the IPC against the petitioner and another person. Thereafter, the District Magistrate, Gaya issued a memorandum vide Memo No. 721/^वववध, Gaya dated 09-03-2022 to the Registrar, Cooperative Society, Patna requesting for sanction to prosecute the petitioner in connection with Amas PS case No.137 of 2018. On receipt of communication, the Registrar, Cooperative Society, Bihar, Patna issued memorandum bearing Memo No. 344 dated 15-01-2025 according sanction to prosecute the petitioner in Amas P.S. Case No.137 of 2018 under sections 406, 409, 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120B, 34 of the IPC. This order has been challenged in the present writ petition.

Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the sanction order to prosecute the petitioner is bad in the eyes of law as the sanction has been accorded in a mechanical manner, without application of mind and without examining the merits of the case. Grant of sanction is a quasi-judicial function and any order, granting sanction or rejecting the sanction must be a speaking order. Therefore, sanction for prosecution is legally unsustainable as it has been granted without recording reasons and without due consideration of the petitioner's status as a Government servant who was the informant of the same police case. Learned counsel further submitted that the sanctioning authority was required to independently assess relevant material placed before it, before granting sanction and as it has failed to do so, hence, the sanction order becomes arbitrary and violative of Article 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India.

Learned Counsel next submitted that the sanctioning authority has not even considered the facts of the case. The procurement of paddy is primarily done jointly by the President as well as the Manager of the PACS. The paddy is bought through Government portal from the farmers who are already registered. The PACS active in different Panchayats procure this paddy and initiate the process of payment of MSP to the registered farmers. In this regard, the National Informatics Centre (NIC) issues generated advice on which the President and the Manager of PACS put their signature on the fixed spot. Similarly, the Supervising Officer, after ensuring that the procurement has been done in fair manner, puts his counter signature on the generated advice. Thereafter, the payment to the farmer gets forwarded and they are paid in their respective bank accounts through NEFT/RTGS. In the present case, on dated 15.03.2018 and 26.03.2018, the NIC issued paddy MSP payment advice 2017-2018 to the registered farmers. The petitioner being the Supervising Officer, countersigned the generated advice slips after the President and the Manager of Jhari PACS put their respective signatures. Learned counsel further submitted that it is worthwhile to note here that role of the petitioner was limited to supervision of procurement of paddy and once paddy was procured and payment has been made to the farmers, petitioner has no further role to play. Thereafter, if any discrepancy is found in the quantity or quality of paddy after procurement and payment to the farmers, the same cannot or should not be attributed to the petitioner. After procurement of paddy, the role of the President and Manager of the PACS becomes crucial. In this regard, physical verification forms dated 15-3-2018 and 26-3-2018 which contained the signature of the President and the Manager of Jhari PACS and also the signature of the petitioner in the official capacity explicitly stated that in a later stage, if discrepancy was found in the quantity of the paddy mentioned in the register available in the godown, then the President of PACS would be held responsible for the same. When the petitioner came to know about the closure of godown and the discrepancy found in the joint physical verification, he issued letter No.99 dated 21.04.2018 to the co-accused Shankar Dayal Singh, the President of Jhari PACS and informed him about the discrepancy and called for a justification from him. The petitioner also directed President, Jhari PACS to deposit the amount equivalent to 1612 quintal of paddy in the bank account of the Co-operative Bank, Sherghati within 3 days, making it clear that failure to do so would entail legal proceedings against him. Replying to the said letter of the petitioner, the co-accused Shankar Dayal Singh issued an explanation dated 27.04.2018 stating therein that discrepancy was due to reasons which were out of the his control like delay in providing miller tag by the State Food Cooperation resulting in drying of paddy, excessive moisture found in the paddy and damage to paddy by the rats. Thus, it is apparent that the petitioner is innocent and is not involved directly or indirectly in the commission of offences for which Amas PS Case No.137 of 2018 was instituted. The role of the petitioner in the procurement of paddy was limited and this fact was well known to everyone working in the concerned department. The petitioner has an impeccable service record and has been performing his duty diligently and honestly. The police based on shoddy investigation and faulty assumption, made the petitioner a scapegoat in the instant case. Despite all these facts, the respondent no. 2 accorded the sanction to prosecute the petitioner in the instant case.

Learned counsel further submitted that the sanction of prosecution accorded is devoid of reasoning and application of independent mind. The respondent no. 2 in its sanction order did not discuss or mention any material which has come against the petitioner rather, it has mechanically and blindly relied on the investigation and statement made by the police who themselves have not understood the case. The learned counsel further submitted that the object of sanctions being granted before cognizance is to ensure that the threat of criminal prosecution does not hang over the heads of the officials who diligently discharge their duty with honesty and sincerity. This is a layer of protection envisioned by the Legislature and the same has been incorporated under Section 197 of the CRPC and Section 218 of the BNSS. Learned counsel further submitted that if allegations are made, it is not for the authorities to grant sanction simply on the basis of the allegations but it is also that they should examine the materials placed by the investigating agency and come to a prima facie satisfaction thereon, about the officer having some involvement in the alleged offence/crime. Learned counsel also submitted that, therefore, granting or refusing sanction must show application of mind. Learned counsel further submitted that on this issue a similar matter travelled to the Hon’ble Supreme Court wherein a cognizance order passed on sanction order similar to the impugned order in the present writ petition has been set aside by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in its decision dated 20-11-2025 passed in the case of Robert Lalchungnunga Chongthu @ R L Chongthu versus The State of Bihar, 2025 INSC 1339 wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court quoted with approval some of the paragraphs of its earlier decision in the case of Mansukhlal Vitthaldas Chauhan Vs. State of Gujarat, (1997)7 SCC 622. Learned counsel further submitted that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Robert Lalchungnunga Chongthu (Supra) even observed that if sanction is based on what can at best be described as vague statements such as “on perusal of the documents and evidences mentioned in Case Diary available”, this protection would be obliterated. Learned counsel further submitted that considering the case law and nature of section 197 of the CrPC/Section 218 of the BNSS and the purpose and intent behind it, the Hon’ble Supreme Court allowed the appeal and quashed the order taking cognizance passed by Learned CJM, Saharsa in connection with Saharsa Sadar P.S. Case No.112 of 2005 dated 24-04-2005. Thus, the learned counsel submitted that the sanction accorded to prosecute the petitioner is devoid of reasoning and application of independent mind. The respondent no. 2 in its sanctioning order did not discuss or mention any material which has come against the petitioner, rather it has mechanically and blindly relied on the statement made by the police, thus causing grave prejudice to the petitioner who has since then remained under threat of malicious prosecution causing reputational damage and mental agony to the petitioner. This false case amounts to violation of fundamental rights of the petitioner guaranteed under the Article 14 and 21 and also the right under Article 39A of the Constitution of India. Therefore, order dated 15-01-2025 by the respondent No. 2 may be quashed.

The contention of the petitioner has been vehemently opposed by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent nos. 1, 2 and 3. It has been submitted on behalf of respondent nos. 1, 2 and 3 that the order passed vide Memo No. 344 dated 15-01-2025 under section 197 of the CrPC/218 of the BNSS in connection with Amas PS case No. 137 of 2018 is strictly in accordance with law and after due consideration of the relevant material forwarded by the District Magistrate, Gaya, the said order has been passed after independent application of mind. Learned counsel further submitted that it is true that the FIR was initially lodged against only one Shankar Dayal Singh by the informant/petitioner however, during investigation, the Investigating Officer found prima facie material disclosing the involvement of the petitioner as well. It was found during investigation that petitioner has countersigned the MSP advice slips and other documents forming the basis for release and withdrawal of public funds. The Investigating Officer upon examining the material and statements found prima facie complicity of the petitioner in the alleged offences involving defalcation of government funds. Once charge sheet has been submitted, the District Magistrate, Gaya forwarded the entire case record to the Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Patna vide memo No. 721 dated 09-03-2022 requesting for grant of sanction to prosecute the petitioner. Upon receipt of request for sanction along with the connected records, the Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Bihar examined the matter in detail and after perusal and review of all the documents including the FIR, case diary, statement of witness documentary evidence and the request made by the District Magistrate, Gaya, recorded her satisfaction that a prima facie case is made out against the petitioner for offences allegedly committed during the discharge of his official duty. This fact is apparent from the impugned order which shows the material forwarded were reviewed and it was found that prima facie offences were made out and there was requirement of sanction under 197 CrPC/218 BNSS, as the petitioner was a public servant.

Learned counsel further submitted that grant of sanction for prosecution is an administrative act and at the stage of grant of sanction, the authority is only required to ascertain whether a prima facie case exists based on the available material. It is not required to conduct a detailed enquiry or record elaborate findings as is done by a Court of Law. Learned counsel further submitted that the allegation that the sanction is mechanical or without application of mind is incorrect as the sanctioning order reflects due consideration of the material and satisfaction of the competent authority. But adequacy or sufficiency of evidence cannot be examined in writ jurisdiction at the stage of sanction. On this aspect, the petitioner will have full opportunity to defend himself before the competent criminal court during trial. Learned counsel further submitted that the object of sanction under section 197 CrPC/218 BNSS is to protect an honest public servant from vexatious prosecution and at the same time, ensuring that public servants are not shielded where prima facie material discloses commission of offence. Learned counsel further submitted that the alleged offences relate to financial irregularities, procurement and disbursement of public funds under the MSP scheme and the IO found prima facie material linking petitioner with the alleged offences. Once the competent authority after examining the material has given opinion that a prima facie case exists based on the available material on record and prosecution should be sanctioned, the same cannot be lightly interfered with in a writ jurisdiction unless it is shown to be wholly without jurisdiction or actuated by mala fide, which is not the case here. The petitioner has an alternative and efficacious remedy before the learned trial court to challenge the validity of sanction at appropriate stage in accordance with law but the instant writ petition seeking quashing of sanction order at a premature stage is not maintainable when charge sheet has already been submitted and cognizance is to be taken by the competent criminal court. There is no infirmity in the sanction order and hence, the same does not need any interference.

The learned counsel representing respondent nos. 4, 5 & 7 adopted the argument submitted on behalf of the respondent nos. 1,2 & 3. Learned counsel submitted that during investigation the name of the petitioner surfaced in connection with the allegation that in the occurrence, his conduct was found to be suspicious. The statement of some of the witnesses indicated that the petitioner was also involved in the embezellment of government funds. The involvement of petitioner also come to the light from the documents seized during the investigation. Learned counsel reiterated that there is no infirmity in the sanctioning order and it has been passed after independently assessing the material available in connection with the Amas PS case no.137 of 2018. Therefore, the present writ petition is misconceived and is fit to be dismissed.

By way of reply, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the sanction order issued by the registrar is ex facie perverse, vague, cryptic and non-speaking. A bare perusal of the order would unmistakably reveal that the sanctioning authority has failed to independently examine or apply its mind to the material placed on record. The said order does not reflect any consideration of the relevant document which appears to be mere mechanical approval of the documents forwarded by the District Magistrate, Gaya and the Registrar simply endorsed them without independent scrutiny mandated under the law, thus, rendering the sanction legally unsustainable. Learned council also submitted that the petitioner has not challenged the adequacy rather the petitioner has been contending that no case is made out against the petitioner. Sanctioning authority has not applied its mind and the same is apparent from the order of sanction. In this regard, learned counsel relied on the case of Robert Lalchungnunga Chongthu (Supra).

I have given my thoughtful consideration to the rival submission of the parties and perused the record.

Section 197(1) of the CrPC/Section 218 of the BNSS mandates the grant of sanction before commencement of prosecution for public servants and reads as under:-

Therefore, requirement of sanction is a condition precedent to the institution of prosecution and it is held to be a sacrosanct act and it is intended to provide safeguard to a public servant against frivolous and vexatious litigations. However, satisfaction of the sanctioning authority is essential to validate an order granting sanction. In the case of Mansukhlal Vitthaldas Chauhan(supra) the Hon'ble Supreme Court held in paragraph 17, 18 and 19 as under:

The said decision was extracted with approval by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Robert Lalchungnunga Chongthu (Supra). Thus, the settled position of law is that the sanctioning authority has to apply its own independent mind for the generation of genuine satisfaction whether prosecution has to be sanctioned or not.

In the facts of the present case, it would be beneficial for the consideration of the matter to extract the translated sanction order dated 15-01-2025.

A bare perusal of the order dated 15.01.2025 shows that the Registrar, Cooperative Society has just recorded that she was satisfied on basis of documents annexed with the request letter seeking sanction and a prima facie case was made out against the petitioner for initiation of prosecution under relevant provisions. Passing such type of orders without adverting to any of the material or the offence which are made out and blandly asserting that on analysis of document, the relevant offences are made out, could not be said to be proper application of mind by the sanctioning authority.

The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Robert Lalchungnunga Chongthu(Supra) in paragraph no. 12 clarified the law as under:-

In the same paragraph it has also observed as under:-

The order granting sanction to prosecute the petitioner is not different from the order which was before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The sanctioning order before this Court shows there was no proper application of mind and the sanction was granted in a routine manner without considering the material available before the sanctioning authority to prima facie arrive at a conclusion and hence, such order could not be said to be a speaking order.

It goes without saying that reason is the heart and soul of any decision. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Raj Kishore Jha v. State of Bihar, (2003) 11 SCC 519, in Para-19 held as under:

Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Kranti Associates Private Limited & Anr. vs. Masood Ahmed Khan & Ors. reported in (2010) 9 SCC 496 has held that reasons in support of decisions must be cogent, clear and succinct. A pretense of reasons or “rubber-stamp reasons” is not to be equated with a valid decision-making process.

Though it is said that grant of sanction is an administrative function, the orders even under administrative discharge of duty cannot be devoid of reasons. In this regard, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in its decision of Kranti Associates (supra) in paragraph 47 (f) has held as under:-

In the light of aforesaid discussion, I am of the considered opinion that the sanction order contained in Memo No. 344 dated 15.01.2025 annexed at Annexure P/7 is unsustainable and hence, the same is set aside. However, respondent no. 02 is granted liberty to pass an order afresh, within a month from the date of receipt/production of copy of this order, having regard to the discussion made hereinbefore.

Accordingly, the present writ petition stands allowed.