Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Karnataka Lokayukta Police represented by its Police Inspector/Investigating Officer, filed a writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, challenging two orders dated 28-01-2017 and 31-05-2017 passed by the 1st respondent (State Government) declining to accord sanction to prosecute the 3rd respondent, a Police Inspector working in the State Intelligence, Home Department. The background of the case is that the petitioner registered a crime (Crime No.8 of 2012) on 28-11-2012 against the 3rd respondent under Section 13(1)(e) read with 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, for possessing assets disproportionate to his known source of income during the check period from 29.08.1977 to 28.11.2012. After investigation, the petitioner submitted a detailed report and material to the sanctioning authority seeking sanction to prosecute the 3rd respondent. However, the State Government passed an order on 28-01-2017 refusing sanction on the ground that there was no prima facie case, without considering the material on record or providing any reasoning. A subsequent order dated 31-05-2017 also rejected the request. The petitioner contended that the orders were arbitrary, without application of mind, and contrary to the material on record. The court analyzed the orders and found that they were cryptic and did not reflect any consideration of the evidence or material submitted by the investigating agency. The court held that the sanctioning authority must apply its mind to the material on record and pass a reasoned order. Since the impugned orders failed to do so, they were unsustainable. The court quashed both orders and directed the State Government to reconsider the matter afresh and pass a reasoned order within three months from the date of receipt of the order. The writ petition was allowed accordingly.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Sanction for Prosecution - Section 19 Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - Validity of Refusal Order - The State Government refused sanction to prosecute a police inspector for disproportionate assets under Section 13(1)(e) read with 13(2) of the Act - The court held that the order refusing sanction was passed without considering the material on record and without application of mind, as the order merely stated that there was no prima facie case without any reasoning - The court quashed the order and directed reconsideration within three months (Paras 1-10) B) Criminal Law - Disproportionate Assets - Section 13(1)(e) read with 13(2) Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - Check Period - The FIR registered on 28.11.2012 alleged that the accused possessed assets disproportionate to his known source of income during the check period from 29.08.1977 to 28.11.2012 - The court noted that the investigating officer had submitted a detailed report and material to the sanctioning authority, but the authority failed to consider it (Paras 2-6) C) Constitutional Law - Writ Jurisdiction - Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India - Quashing of Sanction Order - The court exercised its writ jurisdiction to quash the order refusing sanction as it was arbitrary and without application of mind - The court directed the State to reconsider the matter afresh and pass a reasoned order within three months (Paras 7-10)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the order of the State Government refusing to grant sanction to prosecute the 3rd respondent under Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 is valid and sustainable in law
Final Decision
The writ petition is allowed. The impugned orders dated 28-01-2017 and 31-05-2017 are quashed. The State Government is directed to reconsider the matter afresh and pass a reasoned order within three months from the date of receipt of the order.
Law Points
- Sanction for prosecution under Prevention of Corruption Act
- 1988 must be based on consideration of all relevant material and application of mind
- order refusing sanction without considering material on record is unsustainable
- writ court can quash such order and direct reconsideration
