Madhya Pradesh High Court
The State Of Madhya Pradesh vs Allahabad Bank on 13 December, 2022
Author: Sheel Nagu
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SHEEL NAGU
&
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIRENDER SINGH
ON THE 13 th OF DECEMBER, 2022
WRIT PETITION No. 888 of 2018
BETWEEN:-
1. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THR. THE
SECRETARY GOVT. OF M.P. GENERAL
ADMINISTRATION DEPARTMENT MANTRALAYA
BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)
2. THE ECONOMIC OFFENCE WING M.P. E.O.W.
ARERA HILLS BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH) THR.
ITS DIRECTOR GENERAL.
.....PETITIONERS
(SHRI MADHUR SHUKLA - ADVOCATE FOR PETITIONER NO.2)
AND
1. ALLAHABAD BANK CENTRAL OFFICE,
ALLAHABAD BANK, HEAD OFFICE, 2 NETAJI
SUBHAS ROAD, KOLKATA 700001 STATE (WEST
BENGAL)
2. GENERAL MANAGER HR ALLAHABAD BANK
HEAD OFFICE 2 NETAJI SUBHAS ROAD, 700001
KOLKATA STATE (WEST BENGAL)
3. MR. S. K. DEY, THE THEN CHIEF MANAGER AT
THE ALLAHABAD BANK BHOPAL (MADHYA
PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI ANOOP NAIR - ADVOCATE)
This petition coming on for admission this day, JUSTICE SHEEL
NAGU passed the following:
ORDER
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ANAND KRISHNA
SEN
Signing time: 12/14/2022
2:16:25 PM
This petition has been filed by the prosecuting agency-Economic Offence
Wing, Bhopal assailing the refusal to grant sanction for prosecuting respondent
No.3.
2. The Coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 01.07.2022
passed in W.P.No.13776/2022 (The State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Sandeep
Kumar Lohani & ors.), in a petition filed by Lokayukta, has held that
Investigating/prosecuting agency has no locus to challenge an order of refusal
to grant sanction. The relevant extract of the said judgment is reproduced below
for ready reference and convenience :
"5. A specific question was put to the counsel for the writ petitioner
that under which provisions of law the Authorities of the Lokayukt
have challenged the impugned order because their work is only to
investigate the matter and place the report before the State
Government for consideration. The impugned order reflects the
application of mind by the Authorities and a detailed order has been
passed by the Authorities holding that the involvement of the
respondent No.1 in the aforesaid offence is not clearly reflected,
therefore, a reasoned and speaking order was passed refusing
sanction.
6. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Mohd. Iqbal
Ahmad Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh reported in AIR 1979 SC 677
has held that the grant of sanction is not an idle formality but a
solemn and sacrosanct act which affords protection to government
servants against frivolous prosecutions and must, therefore, be
strictly complied with before any prosecution could be launched
against public servants. It is well known that the purpose of granting
sanction by the Competent Authority is neither a mere formality
nor a ritual. It is in the nature of a safe ground provided to public
servant of falsely being harassed, implicated and then prosecuted. It
is also aimed at infusing confidence in the fair working of the
public servants and also for keeping a check of unscrupulous
elements to deter the working of public servants by roping them in
vexatious cases. But at the same time, it is to be ensured that those
who are found guilty prima facie of having committed some
offence may be dealt with in accordance with law.
7. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Punjab
Vs. Mohammad Iqbal Bhatti reported in 2010 Cr.L.J. 1436 has held
that it is also well settled that the Supreme Court cannot direct the
Signature Not Verified
sanctioning authority either to grant sanction or not to do so. The
Signed by: ANAND KRISHNA
SEN
Signing time: 12/14/2022
2:16:25 PM
work of the Lokayukt Authorities is only to investigate into the
matter and submit the report before the Government for seeking
sanction. It is for the Government to analyse the report; and it is the
discretion and the domain of the State Government to grant or not
to grant sanction for prosecution. Under no provisions, the State
Government can be compelled to grant sanction for prosecution.
8. Counsel appearing for the petitioner could not point out any
relevant provisions of law to enable the Lokayukt Authorities to ask
for a mandamus to the State Government to grant sanction for
prosecution. It is the prerogative of the State Government to
consider and decide the factum of grant of sanction.
9. In such circumstances, no relief can be extended to the
petitioner.
10. Petition sans merit and is hereby rejected."
3. It is submitted that order passed in Sandeep Kumar Lohani (supra) has
been challenged before the Apex Court by the Lokayukta organization.
4. Be that as it may. Since the Coordinate Bench has taken a view and
this Court sees no reason to take a different view than the one taken by the
Coordinate Bench, the present petition stands dismissed with liberty to the
prosecuting agency to revive the same by preferring an appropriate interlocutory
application in case any favourable order is passed by the Apex Court.
(SHEEL NAGU) (VIRENDER SINGH)
JUDGE JUDGE
anand
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ANAND KRISHNA
SEN
Signing time: 12/14/2022
2:16:25 PM
