Case Note & Summary
The case involves a Criminal Revision Application filed by Smt. Triguna Jagjivan Seth, the Principal of Malti Jayant Dalal High School, challenging the judgment and order dated 24th April, 2003 passed by the learned Special Judge. The Special Judge had held that the sanction for prosecution granted by the applicant's employer, Sadhana Education Society, by letter dated 22nd October, 2001, was legal and valid. The applicant was accused of demanding and accepting a bribe of Rs.75,000 from a teacher, Shri A.K. Choube, for securing his permanent appointment. The complainant alleged that the applicant told him to pay Rs.1 lakh to the Education Officer, Shri Chavan, and later reduced the amount to Rs.75,000. A trap was laid, and the amount was paid in a hotel. The prosecution case was that the applicant requested Shri Chavan to complete the work as the complainant had borrowed the loan. The applicant challenged the validity of the sanction on the ground that the employer was not the competent authority. The court examined the provisions of Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, and held that the employer of a public servant is the competent authority to grant sanction. The court found that the sanction order was passed after due application of mind and was valid. The court dismissed the revision application, upholding the order of the Special Judge.
Headnote
A) Prevention of Corruption Act - Sanction for Prosecution - Section 19 - Competent Authority - The issue was whether the sanction granted by the employer (Sadhana Education Society) for prosecuting the applicant (Principal of an aided school) was legal and valid. The court held that the employer is the competent authority to grant sanction under Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, and the sanction order was passed after due application of mind. (Paras 1-2)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the sanction for prosecution granted by the employer (Sadhana Education Society) by letter dated 22nd October, 2001 is legal and valid under Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
Final Decision
The Criminal Revision Application is dismissed. The order of the Special Judge holding the sanction for prosecution as legal and valid is upheld.
Law Points
- Sanction for prosecution under Section 19 of Prevention of Corruption Act
- 1988 must be granted by competent authority after application of mind
- Employer of a public servant can be competent authority for sanction
- Validity of sanction order can be challenged only on grounds of lack of application of mind or bias
