Madhya Pradesh High Court
Ankit Kumar Pathak vs The State Of M.P on 3 August, 2021
Author: Prakash Shrivastava
1
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
WP-3666-2021
(ANKIT KUMAR PATHAK vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS)
JABALPUR
DATED : 03.08.2021
Heard through Video Conferencing.
Per : Prakash Shrivastava, J.
Shri Anil Lala, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Shri Darshan Soni, learned Government Advocate for the
respondent/State.
Heard.
By this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the order
dated 06.01.2021 by which the sanction for prosecuting the petitioner
under Section 7, 13 (1) (b) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption
Act, 1988 (for short 'the Act') has been granted considering the trap
which was organized against the petitioner.
Submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the
petitioner was not granted any opportunity of hearing before passing
the impugned order and that the complainant had personal grudge
against the petitioner.
Opposing the prayer, learned counsel for the respondent/State
has submitted that the petitioner was caught red-handed and the
sanctioning authority after considering the relevant material has
granted sanction and no opportunity of hearing is required.
So far as the issue of grant of opportunity is concerned, it is
settled that before granting the sanction for prosecution, no
opportunity of hearing is required to be given. The Supreme Court in
the matter of Superintendent of Police (C.B.I.) Vs. Deepak
Chowdhary and others, (1995) 6 SCC 225 has held that :
"5. We find force in the contention. The
grant of sanction is only an administrative
function, though it is true that the accused may
be saddled with the liability to be prosecuted in
a court of law. What is material at that time is
that the necessary facts collected during
investigation constituting the offence have to be
placed before the sanctioning authority and it
has to consider the material. Prima facie, the
authority is required to reach the satisfaction
that the relevant facts would constitute the
offence and then either grant or refuse to grant
sanction. The grant of sanction, therefore, being
administrative act the need to provide an
opportunity of hearing to the accused before
according sanction does not arise. The High
Court, therefore, was clearly in error in holding
that the order of sanction is vitiated by violation
of the principles of natural justice."
Same is the view taken by the Supreme Court in the subsequent
judgment in the matter of State of Maharashtra Vs. Ishwar Piraji
Kalpatri and others, (1996) 1 SCC 542.
So far as the challenge raised by the counsel for the petitioner
on the ground that the complainant had grudge against the petitioner,
the same cannot be raised at this stage for questioning the order of
sanction. It is the settled position in law that the issue relating to non-
consideration of all the material by the competent authority or some
irregularity in passing the sanction order cannot be gone into at the
pre trial stage and for that purpose the petitioner is required to lead
evidence during the trial and establish the issue. Hence, in view of
the judgment of the Supreme Court in the matter of Parkash Singh
Badal and another Vs. State of Punjab and others, (2007) 1 SCC
1 such a ground raised by the petitioner is pre-mature.
The petitioner has also claimed the relief against the FIR dated
24.07.2019 in the present writ petition but no arguments have been
advanced by counsel for the petitioner in this regard, hence the same
need not be gone into.
Thus, no ground is made out to interfere in the sanction order
dated 06.01.2021 at this stage.
The writ petition is accordingly dismissed, however with
liberty to the petitioner to raise a challenge to the sanction order
during the trial and establish it by leading the evidence.
(PRAKASH SHRIVASTAVA) (VIRENDER SINGH)
JUDGE JUDGE
DV
Digitally signed by
DINESH VERMA
Date: 2021.08.05
13:11:49 +05'30'
