Case Note & Summary
The applicant, Balu Dasu Rathod, a Police Sub-Inspector, was facing prosecution under Sections 7, 8, 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, based on a complaint by Dyanchand Shyamsunder Yadav. The charge-sheet was filed in Special Case No. 16 of 2015 before the Special Judge, Thane. The applicant challenged the order of issuance of process and the rejection of his discharge application, primarily on the ground that the sanction for prosecution under Section 19 of the Act was not granted by the competent authority. The applicant was appointed by the Commissioner of Police, Thane, but the sanction was granted by the Additional Commissioner of Police (West Region), Thane, who was not the appointing authority. The applicant argued that the sanction was invalid and the proceedings should be quashed. The State opposed the application, contending that the Additional Commissioner was competent to remove the applicant. The court analyzed the provisions of Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act and the relevant rules, including the Maharashtra Police (Punishment and Appeals) Rules, 1956, and the Bombay Police Act, 1951. The court found that the appointing authority for the applicant was the Commissioner of Police, Thane, and the Additional Commissioner was not the authority competent to remove him. Therefore, the sanction was invalid. The court held that the absence of a valid sanction vitiates the prosecution and that continuing the proceedings would be an abuse of process. Consequently, the court allowed the application, quashed the order below Exhibit 25 dated 29.11.2018 passed by the Special Judge, Thane, and quashed the entire proceedings in Special Case No. 16 of 2015.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Prevention of Corruption Act - Sanction for Prosecution - Section 19 - Competent Authority - The sanction for prosecution of a public servant must be granted by the authority competent to remove him from office. In the present case, the applicant was appointed by the Commissioner of Police, Thane, but the sanction was granted by the Additional Commissioner of Police (West Region), Thane, who was not the appointing authority. Held that the sanction was invalid and the proceedings were quashed (Paras 6-12). B) Criminal Procedure Code - Quashing of Proceedings - Section 482 - Inherent Powers - The High Court can exercise its inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC to quash proceedings where the sanction for prosecution is invalid, as it amounts to an abuse of process of law. Held that the order issuing process and the entire proceedings in Special Case No. 16 of 2015 were quashed (Paras 13-15).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the sanction for prosecution of the applicant, a Police Sub-Inspector, was granted by the competent authority as required under Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, and if not, whether the proceedings against him are liable to be quashed.
Final Decision
The court allowed the application, quashed the order below Exhibit 25 dated 29.11.2018 passed by the Special Judge, Thane in Special Case No. 16 of 2015, and quashed the entire proceedings in Special Case No. 16 of 2015 pending before the Special Judge, Thane.
Law Points
- Sanction for prosecution under Section 19 of Prevention of Corruption Act must be granted by the authority competent to remove the public servant from office
- Sanction order must be passed by the authority who actually appointed the public servant
- Absence of valid sanction vitiates the prosecution and proceedings are liable to be quashed under Section 482 CrPC
