The High Court of Jharkhand dismissed a petition filed by the Former Senior Manager of MECON Ltd seeking the quashing of criminal proceedings against him under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and held that non-compliance with the mandatory period for granting sanction to prosecute a public servant should not automatically lead to the quashing of criminal proceedings, especially when the case involves the prosecution of a public servant for corruption.
Brief Facts:
The petitioner filed the present petition challenging the sanction order issued against him under Section 19 (i)(c) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 after an FIR was registered against him alleging that the petitioner accepted illegal ratification totalling approximately Rs 1,65,45,000/- through various banking transactions facilitated by some firms while working as a senior manager.
Contentions of the Petitioner:
The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner contended that the order without application of judicious mindhe order of sanction was not in accordance with the law and same was passed mechanically. Further, it was submitted that the petitioner was promoted to the post of Assistant Manager after the registration of an FIR against the petitioner under Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 7 and 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act.
Contentions of the Respondent:
The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent contended the CBI has now investigated the matter and the chargesheet has already been submitted and pursuant to that the cognizance has been taken by the learned court. Further, it was submitted that there were sufficient materials against the petitioner and the sanction order too was a well-speaking order and the competent authority had applied its kind and thus no case of quashing the proceedings is made out as the points raised by the petitioner is the subject matter of trial, which cannot be appreciated by this court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
Observations of the court:
The court first referred to the cognizance order and observed that the said order disclosed the materials found against the petitioner in the investigation and the same was a well-reasoned order and suffered from no illegality, further the court referred to the sanction order and observed that the same was passed after discussing the facts and looking into the materials against the petitioner and the same was passed after the Managing Director came to the conclusion that there was a need of prosecution of the petitioner.
The court stated that even for non-compliance with a mandatory period cannot and should not automatically lead to the quashing of criminal proceedings because the prosecution of a public servant for corruption has an element of public interest having a direct bearing on the rule of law. Further, it was stated that the court is required to keep in mind that the complainant or victim has no other remedy available for judicial redressal if the criminal proceedings stand automatically quashed and at the same time, a decision to grant deemed sanction may cause prejudice to the rights of the accused as there would also be nonapplication of mind in such cases and in the view of this, it is in between these competing interests that the Court must maintain the delicate balance and while arriving at this, the court must keep in mind the duty cast on the competent authority to grant sanction within the stipulated period of time and there must be a consequence of dereliction of duty to giving sanction within the time specified.
The court stated that in the present case, the sanction order was passed well within time and it is not a case of the petitioner that the sanction order was passed belatedly further this is not the case of the petitioner that the person, who has passed the sanction order, was not the competent authority and the competent authority is only required to consider whether materials placed by complainant or investigating agency prime facie discloses commission of an offence and a detailed inquiry is not required at the time of passing the order for sanction of prosecution under the Prevention of Corruption Act and thus the sanction order passed is in accordance with law.
The decision of the Court:
The court dismissed the petition.
Case Title: Upendra Nath Mandal vs Union of India and ors.
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi
Case No.: W.P.(Cr.) No. 04 of 2023
Advocate for the Petitioner: Mr. Neel Kamal and Mr. Satish Kumar Keshri
Advocate for the Respondent: Mr. Anil Kumar, Ms Chandana Kumari, Mr. Amitabh and Mr. Anmol Deepak
Read Judgment @LatestLaws.com
Picture Source :
