Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Sri B.M. Janardhan, was a Sub-Registrar working in Tavarekere, Bangalore South Taluk since May 2012. On 21.12.2012, Lokayukta Police registered a case in Crime No.3/2013 against the Sub-Registrar and others for offences punishable under Sections 7, 8, 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. On 22.02.2013, Lokayukta Police conducted a raid on the petitioner's office, searched him and the premises, and found unaccounted money of Rs.60,000/-, which was seized under a panchanama. The petitioner was arrested and later released on bail by the District and Sessions Judge, Ramanagara. The Investigation Officer submitted the investigation report, and the Additional Director General of Police, Karnataka Lokayukta sought sanction for prosecution of the petitioner. The respondent, Inspector General of Stamps and Commissioner for Registration, accorded sanction under Section 19(1)(c) of the Act on 24.01.2014 vide Annexure-A. The petitioner filed a writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying to quash the sanction order. The petitioner contended that the sanction order was passed without affording him an opportunity of hearing and without application of mind. The respondent argued that the sanction order was valid and that no hearing was required. The court held that the sanctioning authority is not required to give a hearing to the government servant before granting sanction, as the order of sanction is an administrative act. The court also found that the sanction order showed due application of mind, as it recorded that the authority had perused the investigation report and other materials and was satisfied that a prima facie case existed. The court further held that the writ petition was not maintainable as the petitioner failed to demonstrate any prejudice caused by the sanction order. The petition was dismissed.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - Sanction for Prosecution - Section 19(1)(c) - Requirement of Hearing - The sanctioning authority is not required to afford a hearing to the government servant before granting sanction for prosecution. The order of sanction is an administrative act and not a quasi-judicial one. The court held that the petitioner's contention that he was not heard before grant of sanction is untenable. (Paras 4-5) B) Criminal Law - Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - Sanction for Prosecution - Section 19(1)(c) - Application of Mind - The sanction order must show that the sanctioning authority applied its mind to the material on record. In this case, the sanction order recorded that the authority had perused the investigation report and other materials and was satisfied that a prima facie case existed. The court found no lack of application of mind. (Paras 4-5) C) Constitutional Law - Writ Jurisdiction - Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India - Maintainability - A writ petition challenging a sanction order under Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 is not maintainable unless the petitioner demonstrates that the order has caused prejudice. The court held that the petitioner failed to show any prejudice and dismissed the petition. (Paras 5-6)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the order of sanction for prosecution passed under Section 19(1)(c) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 is vitiated for want of prior hearing to the petitioner and for non-application of mind by the sanctioning authority.
Final Decision
The writ petition is dismissed. The sanction order dated 24.01.2014 is upheld.
Law Points
- Sanction for prosecution under Section 19 of Prevention of Corruption Act
- 1988 does not require prior hearing to the accused
- Sanctioning authority must apply its mind independently
- Writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution of India not maintainable against sanction order without showing prejudice
