Case Note & Summary
The applicant, Madhuri Bharat Upadhey, was a junior clerk at Lalbahdhur Shastri Primary School, Solapur, which is run by Sanmati Dnyan Prasarak Mandal. She was accused of demanding a bribe of Rs. 150 for issuing a leaving certificate to the complainant's sister. The Anti-Corruption Bureau laid a trap, which was successful, and an offence under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 was registered. After investigation, the prosecution sought sanction for prosecution from the Administrative Committee of the Mandal, which granted sanction. The applicant filed an application for discharge under Section 19(1)(c) of the PC Act, arguing that the sanction was not granted by the competent authority. The Special Judge rejected the application. The applicant then filed a criminal revision application under Section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The High Court examined the issue and found that the applicant was appointed by the Education Officer (Primary), Zilla Parishad, Solapur, who was the competent authority to remove her. The Administrative Committee of the Mandal was not the appointing authority and therefore could not grant valid sanction. The court held that the sanction was invalid and the prosecution could not proceed. The court allowed the revision application, set aside the order of the Special Judge, and discharged the applicant from the case.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure - Revision - Section 397 Cr.P.C. - Challenge to order rejecting discharge - The applicant challenged the order of the Special Judge rejecting her discharge application on the ground of lack of valid sanction under Section 19(1)(c) of the PC Act. The court examined the validity of the sanction order and held that the sanction was not granted by the competent authority as the Administrative Committee of the Mandal was not the appointing authority. (Paras 1-10) B) Prevention of Corruption Act - Sanction for Prosecution - Section 19(1)(c) - Competent Authority - The court held that for a public servant employed by a society, the sanction must be granted by the authority competent to remove the public servant from office. In this case, the appointing authority was the Education Officer (Primary), Zilla Parishad, Solapur, and not the Administrative Committee of the Mandal. Therefore, the sanction was invalid. (Paras 5-10) C) Prevention of Corruption Act - Discharge - Absence of Valid Sanction - The court allowed the revision application and discharged the applicant, holding that the prosecution cannot proceed without a valid sanction under Section 19(1)(c) of the PC Act. The court set aside the order of the Special Judge and discharged the applicant from the case. (Paras 10-11)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the prosecution of the applicant under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 is maintainable in the absence of a valid sanction under Section 19(1)(c) of the PC Act from the competent authority?
Final Decision
The High Court allowed the criminal revision application, set aside the order dated 12/11/2019 passed by the Special Judge (ACB), Solapur, and discharged the applicant from Special Case (ACB) No.15/2015.
Law Points
- Sanction under Section 19(1)(c) of Prevention of Corruption Act
- 1988 is mandatory for prosecution of a public servant
- Sanction must be granted by the authority competent to remove the public servant from office
- Order of sanction must be passed by the authority competent to remove the public servant at the time of taking cognizance
- Absence of valid sanction vitiates the prosecution
