HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
AT HYDERABAD
*****
Criminal Petition No.10267 OF 2022
Between:
C.Shobha Rani. ... Petitioner
And
The State of Telangana,
rep. by its Spl. Public Prosecutor
for CBI, High Court, Hyderabad. ... Respondent
DATE OF JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED: 29.11.2022
Submitted for approval.
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
1 Whether Reporters of Local
newspapers may be allowed to Yes/No
see the Judgments?
2 Whether the copies of judgment
may be marked to Law Yes/No
Reporters/Journals
3 Whether Their
Ladyship/Lordship wish to see Yes/No
the fair copy of the Judgment?
__________________
K.SURENDER, J
2
* THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K. SURENDER
+ CRL.P No. 10267 of 2022
% Dated 29.11.2022
# C.Shobha Rani ... Petitioner
And
$ The State of Telangana,
rep. by its Spl. Public Prosecutor
for CBI, High Court, Hyderabad. ... Respondent
! Counsel for the Petitioners: Sri K.R.K.V.Prasad
^ Counsel for the Respondents: Special Public Prosecutor for CBI
>HEAD NOTE:
? Cases referred
1
(2004) 2 Supreme Court Cases 65
2 2010 CRI.L.J 1436
3 2014 (1) ALD (Crl.) 120 (AP)
4 2011 (2) Crimes 116
5 AIR 1996 Supreme Court 186
6 (2014) 13 Supreme Court Cases 70
7 (2010) 14 Supreme Court Cases 527
3
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
CRIMINAL PETITION No.10267 OF 2022
ORDER:
1. This petition is filed to quash the proceedings against the petitioner/A6 in CC No.7 of 2017 on the file of the Court of I Additional Special Judge for CBI Cases, Hyderabad.
2. The petitioner is amongst ten accused, who are being prosecuted for entering into criminal conspiracy during the years 2010 to 2012 in the matter of credit facility sanctioned to A1 company by Bank of India, Banjara Hills branch where the petitioner was working as Chief Manager in the said Bank.
3. The facts of the case are not necessary since the ground raised by the petitioner is that the competent authority for grant of sanction declined to grant sanction for prosecution on 24.01.2015. However, the very same authority has granted sanction on 09.11.2016 on the very same material, on the basis of which sanction was refused earlier.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the sanctioning authority Sri Kul Bhushan Jain, who was the 4 General Manger, NBG (South), Chennai has declined to grant sanction on 24.01.2015 by giving details running into ten pages. A chart was prepared by the authority reflecting the lapses as per the CBI report vis-à-vis lapses as per the internal investigation report, accordingly, commented on the role played by this petitioner. Having considered the entire material, the competent authority declined to grant sanction.
5. Learned counsel further submits that the learned Special Judge has declined to discharge this petitioner on the ground that the judgments cited by the petitioner seeking discharge were rendered under the inherent powers of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and also the High Court, as such, the learned Special Judge has no such power and declined to discharge the petitioner, which is erroneous. In support of his contentions, he relied upon the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of: i) Bahadursinh Lakhubhai Gohil v. Jagdishbhai M.Kamalia1, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that if any statutory authority takes a 1 (2004) 2 Supreme Court Cases 65 5 decision at the behest or on the suggestion of a person who has no statutory role to play, the same would be ultra vires. Referring to the facts of the present case, he argues that at the instance of CBI, the sanction was again granted, which was earlier refused. He also relied upon the judgments in the cases of; ii) State of Punjab and another v. Mohammed Iqbal Bhatti2 in which the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that when grant of sanction was refused, the very same authority granting sanction again without there being any fresh material cannot be said to be proper. Similar view was taken in the judgment cited in the case of Mohd.Aleemuddin v. State of Andhra Pradesh3 and Ashok Shankarrao Chavan v. His Excellency Shri Ch.Vidyasagar Rao (Bombay) (DB).
6. On the other hand, learned Special Public Prosecutor submits that there is nothing wrong with the order of the sanctioning authority granting sanction on 09.11.2016, though refused on 24.01.2015. He also submits that earlier, 2 2010 CRI.L.J 1436 3 2014 (1) ALD (Crl.) 120 (AP) 6 the competent authority thought it fit to prosecute them departmentally. However, a decision was taken subsequently to grant sanction to the CBI to be prosecuted before the Special Court, which cannot be found fault with.
7. Learned Special Public Prosecutor relied upon the judgment in the case of Avinash Mathur v. State of Rajasthan4, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that granting sanction by the State government to prosecute under the Prevention of Corruption Act and under Section 197 of Cr.P.C was correct. He also relied upon the judgment in the case of Superintendent of Police (CBI) v. Deepak Chowdhary5, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that order quashing sanction of an accused on the ground that he was exonerated by the disciplinary authority was not proper. He also relied upon the judgment of Chandan Kumar Basu v. State of Bihar6, in which, the Hon'ble Supreme Court while 4 2011 (2) Crimes 116 5 AIR 1996 Supreme Court 186 6 (2014) 13 Supreme Court Cases 70 7 dealing with Section 197 of Cr.P.C, held that that correctness or otherwise of the sanction granted can be decided at a stage after evidence was adduced. For the said reasons, learned Special Public Prosecutor argues the correctness or otherwise of the sanction can only be decided after full-fledged trial and when the sanction was granted by the competent authority, this Court under inherent powers cannot interfere and quash the sanction order.
8. There is no dispute regarding the proposition laid down in the judgments cited by the learned Special Public Prosecutor for CBI. However, none of the judgments dealt with the issue in question. The main ground that is agitated by the petitioner is having refused sanction earlier and without there being any fresh material, sanction was granted subsequently.
9. Having gone through the sanction order, the sanctioning authority, who is the General Manager i.e., Sri Kul Bhushan Jain at the relevant time has commented at page 10 as follows:
8
"The entire likely loss of Rs.8.49 cr also cannot be attributed to her as only 2 disbursements, amounting to Rs.2.56 cr, were made during her tenure. However, since she had made the initial disbursement without compliance of pre-disbursement terms this allegation can be partially attributed to her. Hence the above points do not indicate any 'Conspiracy' entered into by her, with STPL and others, for defrauding the Bank. Arrangement under Section 13 (1)(c ) & (d) of the PC Act entails adducing of some positive evidence regarding the mala fide intent on the part of the accused and for having entered into Conspiracy with the other accused. The evidence cited by the CBI falls short in this regard and the acts and omissions delineated against Mrs.Shobha Rani by them, amounts to only gross procedural lapses."
10. Thereafter, on 09.11.2016, the very same sanctioning authority has not given any reasons for granting sanction on 09.11.2016 but observed as follows:
"The undersigned being the competent authority in the capacity of Disciplinary Authority in the instant matter, declined to accord sanction for prosecution earlier on 24.01.2015 by citing the above mentioned reasons. However, after going through the entire records of the case thoroughly once again, I, Kul Bhushan Jain, General Manager, National Banking Group (South), of Bank of India, being competent authority to take disciplinary action under Bank of India, Officer Employees' (Discipline & Appeal) Regulations, 1976, and being the authority to accord sanction in exercise of powers vested u/s 19(1)(c ) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, do hereby accord sanction to prosecute the above said Smt. C.Shobha Rani, then Chief Manager, BOI, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad, presently working as AGM (Scale-V), BOI, Large Corporate Branch, Hyderabad."
11. The sanctioning authority has not given any reasons for granting sanction on 09.11.2016 except stating that he has 9 gone through the entire records thoroughly once again. In fact, the sanctioning authority has gone through the entire record thoroughly prior to 24.01.2015 and refused sanction as seen from the sanction order itself. What are the findings that the sanctioning authority-General Manager has found once again on 09.11.2016 to grant sanction, having declined it earlier are not at all stated. When the sanction granted is bereft of any reasons and granted stating that the records were gone through thoroughly once again would not suffice to grant sanction. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the judgment of State of Himachal Pradesh v. Nishant Sareen7, it is held as follows:
" 13. In our opinion, a change of opinion per se on the same materials cannot be a ground for reviewing or reconsidering the earlier order refusing to grant sanction. However, in a case where fresh materials have been collected by the investigating agency subsequent to the earlier order and placed before the sanctioning authority and on that basis, the matter is reconsidered by the sanctioning authority and in light of the fresh materials an opinion is formed that sanction to prosecute the public servant may be granted, there may not be any impediment to adopt such a course.
14. Insofar as the present case is concerned, it is not even the case of the appellant that fresh materials were collected by the investigating agency and placed before the sanctioning authority for reconsideration and/or for review of the earlier order refusing to grant sanction. As a matter of fact, from the perusal of the subsequent 7 (2010) 14 Supreme Court Cases 527 10 Order dated 15-3-2008 it is clear that on the same materials, the sanctioning authority has changed its opinion and ordered sanction to prosecute the respondent which, in our opinion, is clearly impermissible."
The Hon'ble Supreme Court has quashed the sanction orders which were granted subsequently on the very same material having declined to grant sanction earlier. The said judgment is squarely applicable to the facts in the present case.
12. There is no necessity to conclude trial as argued by the learned Public Prosecutor to ascertain whether the subsequent grant of sanction is correct or not. On the basis of the sanction order itself, it is apparent that there was thorough discussion of the competent authority in declining the sanction on 24.01.2015 and absolutely, no reasons are given for granting of sanction subsequently on 09.11.2016. When the said infirmity is glaring, the petitioner cannot be permitted to undergo criminal trial.
13. The learned Special Judge has given absurd reasoning while dismissing the discharge application that the judgments 11 cited by the petitioner seeking discharge were rendered under the inherent powers of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and also the High Court, as such, the learned Special Judge has no such power. The main object of doctrine of precedent is that the law of the land should be clear, certain and consistent so that the Courts shall follow it without any hesitation of the Constitution of India lays down that the law declared, by the Supreme Court shall be binding on all courts within the territory of India. A decision of a High Court Judge of a State is regarded as binding on all the subordinate courts in that State.
In the said circumstances, the proceedings against the petitioner in CC No.7 of 2017 on the file of I Additional Special Judge for CBI Cases, Hyderabad are hereby quashed.
14. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed.
__________________ K.SURENDER, J Date: 29.11.2022 Note: LR copy to be marked.
B/o.kvs 12 HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER CRIMINAL PETITOIN No.10267 OF 2022 Date: 29.11.2022.
kvs