By observing that Section 465 of the Cr.P.C. makes it clear that any error, omission or irregularity in the grant of sanction will not affect any finding, sentence or order passed by a competent Court unless in the opinion of the court a failure of justice has been occasioned, the Delhi High Court dismissed the present petition moved by the petitioner under Section 482 of Cr.P.C, 1973 read with Article 227 of the Constitution of India through which the petitioner was seeking to set aside the order dated August 7, 2014 passed by the Special Judge.
A Single bench of Justice Chandra Dhari Singh dismissed the present petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C, 1973 read with Article 227 of the Constitution of India wherein petitioner was seeking to set aside the order dated August 7, 2014 passed by the Special Judge, by observing that in spite of anything contained in the Cr.P.C., no finding, sentence and order passed by the Special Judge shall be reversed or altered by a Court in appeal, confirmation or revision on the ground of the absence of, or any error, omission or irregularity in the sanction required under sub-Section (1), unless in the opinion of that Court a failure of justice has in fact been occasioned thereby.
The instant petition was preferred under Section 482 of Cr.P.C, 1973 read with Article 227 of the Constitution of India wherein petitioner was seeking to set aside the order dated August 7, 2014 passed by the Special Judge.
Factual background of the case was such that the petitioner in the instant case was a public servant who was arraigned as an accused under Section 13 (2) read with Section 13 (1) (d) and 13 (1) (e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The Special Judge through order dated April 11, 2008 framed charges against the petitioner under the aforesaid Sections for disproportionate assets of Rs.9,48,19,816/-. Charges were also framed under Section 109 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 against the other persons named as accused.
The petitioner in pursuance of the judgment pronounced on January 25 , 2012 instituted an application dated April 3, 2012 before the Special Judge praying for dropping of the criminal proceedings pending against him on the ground that since in the present case the sanction as required under Section 19 of the PC Act was not obtained by the Corporation, which is the competent authority, thus the cognizance taken by the Special Judge and the proceedings initiated against the petitioner were without jurisdiction and void, having been initiated without obtaining prior sanction from the Corporation as mandated by Section 19 of the PC Act. However, through an order dated August 7, 2014, the application was dismissed by the Special Judge. Hence, the present application was filed.
After considering the submissions of the rival parties and after pursuing all the relevant material placed on record, the Court took into consideration the relevant portion of the impugned judgment. Thereafter, the Court took into account Section 95 (1) of the DMC Act. Subsequently, the question of law that was posed for consideration before the present Court was whether a criminal prosecution ought to be interfered with by the High Courts at the instance of the accused who seeks midcourse relief from the criminal charges leveled against him on grounds of defects/omissions or errors in the order granting sanction to prosecute including errors of jurisdiction to grant such sanction.
In view of the same, the Court observed that the object behind the requirement of grant of sanction to prosecute a public servant was not to restrict the Court to proceed against an officer. It was further stated that the only exception to the aforesaid proposition comes into play when the need arises to prevent and check the frivolous, mischievous and unscrupulous attempts made to prosecute an honest public servant for acts arising out of due discharge and also to enable him to efficiently perform the wide range of duties casted upon him by virtue of his office. If the discharge or exercise of the governmental function is prima facie founded on the bona fide judgment of the public servant, the requirement of sanction will be insisted upon so as to act as a filter to keep at bay any motivated, ill-founded and frivolous prosecution against the public servant, the Court remarked.
The Court further took into consideration Section 19 which is a part of Chapter 5 of the PC Act which deals with Sanction For Prosecution and Other Miscellaneous Provisions. In view of the same, the Court stated that a plain reading of sub- sections (3) and (4) make the position vivid that in spite of anything contained in the Cr.P.C., no finding, sentence and order passed by the Special Judge shall be reversed or altered by a Court in appeal, confirmation or revision on the ground of the absence of, or any error, omission or irregularity in the sanction required under sub-Section (1), unless in the opinion of that Court a failure of justice has in fact been occasioned thereby.
It was further observed by the Court that the phrase “failure of justice” is too pliable or facile an expression, which could be fitted in any situation of a case.
Additionally, the Court observed that the dividing line between an act in the discharge of official duty and an act that is not may , at times, get blurred thereby, that causes certain unjustified claims to be raised on behalf of the public servant. To prevent the misuse of the sanction, specific provisions are incorporated in Section 19(3) of the PC Act as well as in Section 465 of the Cr.P.C. which, inter alia, make it clear that any error, omission or irregularity in the grant of sanction will not affect any finding, sentence or order passed by a competent Court unless in the opinion of the court a failure of justice has been occasioned, the Court noted. The Court also took note of Sections 462 and 465 of Cr.P.C.
Coming back to the facts of the present case, the Court noted that the Special Judge while examining the application filed by the petitioner for dropping of the criminal proceedings pending against him, opted for a correct view that the question of validity of sanction was also connected with the question whether invalid sanction has resulted in the failure of justice, the issue cannot be gone into during the trial unless the evidence is completely recorded.
In view of the aforesaid observations, the Court submitted that it found that there was no illegality or error in the impugned judgment and was also of the view that it did not find any reasonable ground for invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. for the purpose of quashing the entire criminal proceedings.
Case name: DEVENDRA GUPTA Vs. CBI
Picture Source :
