Madhya Pradesh High Court
Dadu Ram Basant vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 13 October, 2025
Author: Vivek Agarwal
Bench: Vivek Agarwal, Avanindra Kumar Singh
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:52130
1 WP-12160-2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK AGARWAL
&
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE AVANINDRA KUMAR SINGH
ON THE 13th OF OCTOBER, 2025
WRIT PETITION No. 12160 of 2024
DADU RAM BASANT
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Suyash Verma - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Nitin Gupta - Government Advocate for the respondents No.1 to 3/State.
Shri Abhinav Shrivastava - Advocate for the respondent No.4.
ORDER
Per: Justice Vivek Agarwal
This writ petition is filed challenging the order dated
15.03.2024/27.03.2024 passed by the Secretary, Government of Madhya
Pradesh, Department of Industrial Policy & Investment Facilitation, whereby
the department has granted prosecution sanction against the petitioner Dadu
Ram Basant, the then Inspector/In-charge Asstt. Registrar, Firms and
Societies, Rewa, Shahdol Division Rewa, under the provisions of Prevention
of Corruption Act, 1988.
2. Petitioner is also aggrieved of the order dated 24.04.2024 passed
by the Dy. Secretary Government of Madhya Pradesh, Department of
Industrial Policy & Investment Facilitation, issuing the revised order of
sanction on the ground that firstly petitioner is innocent and secondly, in
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:52130
2 WP-12160-2024
terms of the provisions contained in Section 19 of Prevention of Corruption
Act, 1988, in absence of any error, irregularity etc. sanction should not have
been granted.
3. It is submitted that, in the light of the Judgment of Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of CBI Vs. Ashok Kumar Aggarwal (2014)14
SCC 295, Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under:
"16.1 The prosecution must send the entire relevant record to the
sanctioning authority including the FIR, disclosure statements,
statements of witnesses, recovery memos, draft charge-sheet and all
other relevant material. The record so sent should also contain the
material/document, if any, which may tilt the balance in favour of the
accused and on the basis of which, the competent authority may refuse
sanction.
16.2 The authority itself has to do complete and conscious
scrutiny of the whole record so produced by the prosecution
independently applying its mind and taking into consideration all the
relevant facts before grant of sanction while discharging its duty to give
or withhold the sanction.
16.3 The power to grant sanction is to be exercised strictly
keeping in mind the public interest and the protection available to the
accused against whom the sanction is sought.
16.4 The order of sanction should make it evident that the
authority had been aware of all relevant facts/materials and had applied
its mind to all the relevant material.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:52130
3 WP-12160-2024
16.5 In every individual case, the prosecution has to establish
and satisfy the court by leading evidence that the entire relevant facts
had been placed before the sanctioning authority and the authority had
applied its mind on the same and that the sanction had been granted in
accordance with law."
4. It is also submitted that, relying on the transcript without matching
its contents with the Audio Recording in the proper prospective is violative
of the principles applicable to grant of sanction as held by Hon'ble Supreme
Court in the case of State of Karnataka Vs. Ameer Jan (2007)11 SCC 273. It
is also submitted that, in case of P.L. Tatwal Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh
(2014)11 SCC 431 , it is held that " grant of sanction is an administrative
function which intents to protect Public Servants against frivolous and
fictitious litigation".
5. Therefore, it is prayed that, present is the case where petitioner has
been falsely implicated in the name of alleged demand of bribe of Rs.5000/-
from one Shri Rajnish Kushwaha for processing certain amendments in a
Society named as "Bharosa Seva Samiti" for which FIR was registered on
19th March, 2020. It is further submitted that, case was registered on the
allegation that petitioner's voice was recorded alleging that, he demanded
bribe but no money was since recovered from the petitioner during the
offence and instead it was found on the table in front of him, therefore, in
absence of any recovery of money and also in absence of traces of
phenolphthalein being found on his hand, merely on the ground of demand
of bribe as deciphered from the recording is not a sufficient ground to grant
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:52130
4 WP-12160-2024
sanction prosecution.
6. Shri Abhinav Shrivastava, learned counsel for the respondent
No.4/Lokayukta in its turn submits that, basic ground to challenge the order
of sanction so also the amended order of sanction is two fold; namely, it
being not reasoned one and there being no application of mind by the
sanctioning authority, is concerned, that ground is misconceived and
baseless. Respondent No.2 while granting sanction has appreciated the facts
and the materials produced before him and has granted sanction.
7. It is pointed out that in the case of Dinesh Kumar Vs. Chairman,
Airport Authority of India & another (Criminal Appeal Nos. 2170-2171 of
2011), decided on 22.11.2011 , Hon'ble Supreme Court has dealt with the
issue and placing reliance upon the judgment in the case of Prakash Singh
Badal Vs. State of Punjab (2007)1 SCC 1, came to the conclusion that once
cognizance is taken against the appellant by the trial Judge, High Court
cannot be said to have erred in leaving the question of validity of sanction
open for consideration by the trial Court and given liberty to the appellant to
raise the issue concerning validity of sanction order in the course of trial.
Such course is in accord with the decision of this Court in the case of
Prakash Singh Badal (Supra). Thus, it is submitted that, in the light of the
judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Dinesh Kumar Vs.
Chairman, Airport Authority of India (supra) , order of sanction cannot be
said to be amenable to the writ jurisdiction is especially when the petitioner
has sufficient safeguards to protect his interest.
8. Shri Nitin Gupta, learned Government Advocate for the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:52130
5 WP-12160-2024
respondent/State in his turn submits that, Hon'ble Division Bench of this
Court in the case of Sabit Khan Vs. State of M.P. & ors. (W.P. 7818 of
2021) vide order dated 12.08.2021 has held that the grunt of sanction to be
administrative function which does not call for any interference.
9. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and going through
the records.
10. In the case of Sabit Khan Vs. State of M.P. (supra) , the Co-
ordinate Bench of this Court has held as under:
8. The issue relating to absence of sanction or the order
of sanction being a nullity can be raised at the threshhold but
a challenge to the order of sanction on the ground that it suffers from
the defect of improper application of mind or non-consideration of
relevant material is required to be raised during the trial and establish
by leading evidence, when the prosecution will also have an
opportunity to produce all the relevant material as also examine the
sanctioning authority.
9. The Supreme Court in the matter of Parkash Singh Badal &
Another vs. State of Punjab & Others reported in (2007) 1 SCC 1 has
drawn the distinction between a case where there was absence of
sanction and a case where the order of sanction was vitiated on some
ground and has held that where there is absence of sanction the issue
can be agitated at the threshhold of trial but when the sanction exists
then question as to vitiation has to be raised during trial. The Supreme
Court in the matter of Parkash Singh Badal(supra) in this regard has
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:52130
6 WP-12160-2024
held that -
"29. The effect of sub-sections (3) and (4) of Section 19 of
the Act are of considerable significance. In Sub-Section (3)
the stress is on "failure of justice" and that too "in the opinion
of the court". In sub-section (4), the stress is on raising the plea at
the appropriate time. Significantly, the "failure of justice" is
relatable to error, omission or irregularity in the
sanction. Therefore, mere error, omission or irregularity in
sanction is (sic not) considered fatal unless it has resulted in failure
of justice or has been occasioned thereby. Section 19(1) is a matter
of procedure and does not go to the root of jurisdiction as
observed in para 95 of Narasimha Rao case. Sub-section (3)(c) of
Section 19 reduces the rigour of prohibition. In Section 6(2) of the
old Act (Section 19(2) of the Act) question relates to doubt about
authority to grant sanction and not whether sanction is necessary."
It has further been held that -
"47. The sanctioning authority is not required to
separately specify each of the offences against the accused
public servant. This is required to be done at the stage of framing
of charge. Law requires that before the sanctioning
authority materials must be placed so that the sanctioning
authority can apply his mind and take a decision. Whether there is
an application of mind or not would depend on the facts
and circumstances of each case and there cannot be
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:52130
7 WP-12160-2024
any generalised guidelines in that regard."
48. The sanction in the instant case related to
offences relatable to Act. There is a distinction between the
absence of sanction and the alleged invalidity on account of non
application of mind. The former question can be agitated at the
threshold but the latter is a question which has to be raised during
trial.
10. The Supreme Court in the matter of Central Bureau
of Investigation vs. Ashok Kumar Aggarwal reported in (2014) 14 SCC
295 has reiterated that the proper stage of examining the validity of
sanction is during trial. Taking note of Section 19 of the PC Act, the
Hon'ble Court held that-
"58. The most relevant issue involved herein is as at
what stage the validity of sanction order can be raised. The issue is
no more res integra. In Dinesh Kumar v. Airport Authority of
India this Court dealt with the issue and placing reliance upon the
judgment in Parkash Singh Badal v. State of Punjab, came to the
conclusion as under:
"13. In our view, having regard to the facts of the present
case, now since cognizance has already been taken against the
appellant by the trial Judge, the High Court cannot be said to have
erred in leaving the question of validity of sanction open for
consideration by the trial court and giving liberty to the appellant
to
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:52130
8 WP-12160-2024
raise the issue concerning validity of sanction order in the course
of trial. Such course is in accord with the decision of this Court in
Parkash Singh Badal ...."
59. Undoubtedly, the stage of examining the validity
of sanction is during the trial and we do not propose to say that the
validity should be examined during the stage of inquiry or at pre-
trial stage."
11. In the matter of Dinesh Kumar vs. Chairman,
Airport Authority of India & Another reported in (2012) 1 SCC 532
in a case where cognizance was already taken by the trial Court, the
Hon'ble Supreme Court has affirmed the order of the High Court
whereby the question of validity of sanction was left open for
consideration by the trial Court by giving liberty to the accused to raise
this issue in course of trial. Considering the earlier judgment in the case
of Parkash Singh Badal(supra), the Supreme Court in the matter of
Dinesh Kumar(supra) held that9. While drawing a distinction between
the absence of sanction and invalidity of the sanction, this Court in
Parkash Singh Badal expressed in no uncertain terms that the absence
of sanction could be raised at the inception and threshold by an
aggrieved person. However, where sanction order exists, but its legality
and validity is put in question, such issue has to be raised in the course
of trial. Of course, in Parkash Singh Badal, this Court referred to
invalidity of sanction on account of non- application of mind.
10. In our view, invalidity of sanction where sanction order
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:52130
9 WP-12160-2024
exists, can be raised on diverse grounds like non-availability of material
before the sanctioning authority or bias of the sanctioning authority or
the order of sanction having been passed by an authority not
authorised or competent to grant such sanction. The above grounds are
only illustrative and not exhaustive. All such grounds of invalidity
or illegality of sanction would fall in the same category like the
ground of invalidity of sanction on account of non-application of mind
a category carved out by this Court in Parkash Singh Badal,
the challenge to which can always be raised in the course of trial.
11. In a later decision, in the case of Aamir Jaan, this Court had
an occasion to consider the earlier decisions of this Court including
the decision in the case of Parkash Singh Badal. Ameerjan was a
case where the Trial Judge, on consideration of the entire
evidence including the evidence of sanctioning authority, held that the
accused Ameerjan was guilty of commission of offences punishable
under Sections 7,13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the P.C. Act.
However, the High Court overturned the judgment of the Trial Court
and held that the order of sanction was illegal and the judgment of
conviction could not be sustained.
12. Dealing with the situation of the case wherein the High
Court reversed the judgment of the conviction of the accused on the
ground of invalidity of sanction order, with reference to the case of
Parkash Singh Badal, this Court stated in Ameerjan in para 17 of the
Report as follows:
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:52130
10 WP-12160-2024
"17. Parkash Singh Badal, therefore, is not an authority for
the proposition that even when an order of sanction is held to be
wholly invalid inter alia on the premise that the order is a nullity
having been suffering from the vice of total non-application of
mind. We, therefore, are of the opinion that the said decision
cannot be said to have any application in the instant case."
13. In our view, having regard to the facts of the present case,
now since cognizance has already been taken against the appellant by
the Trial Judge, the High Court cannot be said to have erred in
leaving the question of validity of sanction open for consideration by
the Trial Court and giving liberty to the appellant to raise the issue
concerning validity of sanction order in the course of trial. Such course
is in accord with the decision of this Court in Parkash Singh
Badal and not unjustified."
12. In the matter of State of M.P. vs. Virender Kumar Tripathi,
reported in (2009) 15 SCC 533 in a case where the High Court had
quashed the proceedings on the ground that Law & Legislative
Department was required to consult parent department of the accused
for want of which there was no proper sanction, the Hon'ble Supreme
Court found that there was no whisper or pleading about failure of
justice and the stage when failure of justice was to be eastablished was
yet to be reached as the issue of failure of justice could be
determined once trial commenced and evidence is led. In this regard,
the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Virendra Kumar Tripathi(s)
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:52130
11 WP-12160-2024
held that -
"9. Further, the High Court has failed to consider the
effect of Section 19(3) of the Act. The said provision makes it
clear that no finding, sentence or order passed by a Special
Judge shall be reversed or altered by a court of appeal on
the ground of absence of /or any error, omission or irregularity
in sanction required under sub-section (1) of Section 19 unless in
the opinion of the Court a failure of justice has in fact
been occasioned thereby.
10. In the instant case there was not even a whisper
or pleading about any failure of justice. The stage when this failure
is to be established yet to be reached since the case is at the stage
of framing of charge whether or not failure has in fact been
occasioned was to be determined once the trial commenced and
evidence was lead. In this connection the decisions of this Court in
State v. T. Venkatesh Murthy [2004(7) SCC 763] and in Prakash
Singh Badal v. State of Punjab [2007(1) SCC 1] need to be noted.
That being so the High Court's view quashing the proceedings
cannot be sustained and the State's appeal deserves to be allowed
which we direct."
13. This Court also in the matter of Satish Pateriya vs. State of
M.P. and another by order dated 15.03.2021 passed in
WP No.19813/2020 considering the earlier judgments on the point has
held that -
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:52130
12 WP-12160-2024
"10. In the case of State of M.P. v. Dr. Krishna
Chandra Saksena, (1996) 11 SCC 439 Hon'ble the Supreme Court
has held that at the stage of quashing of criminal
proceedings where even challan had not been filed the order of
sanction could not have been treated by the High Court ex facie
illegal or invalid. It is settled law that at the stage of granting
of sanction, the accused need not be heard. The question whether
all the relevant evidence which would have titled the balance in
favour of the accused if it was considered by the sanctioning
authority before granting sanction and which was actually left out
of consideration, could be examined only at the stage of trial when
the sanctioning authority comes forward as a prosecution witness
to support the sanction order, if challenged during the trial. It is
further held that as that stage was not reached the prosecution
could not have been quashed at the very inception on the
supposition that all the relevant documents were not considered by
the sanctioning authority while granting the impugned sanction."
14. The Supreme Court in the matter of State of Karnataka vs.
Ameerjan reported in (2007) 11 SCC 273 considering the issue of grant
of sanction under Section 19 of the PC Act has held that the sanction
order must be demonstrative of the fact that there had been proper
application of mind on the part of sanctioning authority. The material
collected during investigation which would prima facie establish
existence of evidence in regard to commission of offence should be
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:52130
13 WP-12160-2024
available before the sanctioning authority before the order of sanction
is passed. It has further been held that if the sanction order does not
indicate application of mind as to the material produced before the
authority then the same may be produced before the Court to show that
such a material was infact produced before the competent authority.
That was a case where in appeal the High Court had reversed the
judgment on the ground of invalid sanction and the sanctioning
authority himself was examined before the trial Court. In this
background, the Hon'ble Court held that -
"10. For the aforementioned purpose,
indisputably, application of mind on the part of the sanctioning
authority is imperative. The order granting sanction must
be demonstrative of the fact that there had been proper application
of mind on the part of the sanctioning authority. We have noticed
hereinbefore that the sanctioning authority had purported to pass
the order of sanction solely on the basis of the report made by the
Inspector General of Police, Karnataka Lokayuktha. Even the said
report has not been brought on record. Thus, whether in the said
report, either in the body thereof or by annexing therewith the
relevant documents, IG Police Karnataka Lokayuktha had placed
on record the materials collected on investigation of the
matter which would prima facie establish existence of evidence
in regard to the commission of the offence by the public
servant concerned is not evident. Ordinarily, before passing an
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:52130
14 WP-12160-2024
order of sanction, the entire records containing the
materials collected against the accused should be placed before
the sanctioning authority. In the event, the order of sanction
does not indicate application of mind as (sic to) the
materials placed before the said authority before the order of
sanction was passed, the same may be produced before the court
to show that such materials had in fact been produced."
15. In the matter of P.L. Tatwal vs. State of Madhya
Pradesh reported in (2014) 11 SCC 431, it has been held that grant
of sanction is an administrative function which intend to protect public
servant against frivolous and vaccacious litigation. It has further been
clarified that if the relevant material is not reflected in the order, it
should be capable of proof before the Court. Observing so the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of P.L. Tatwal(supra) has held that -
"12. The grant of sanction is only an administrative
function. It is intended to protect public servants against frivolous
and vexatious litigation. It also ensures that a dishonest officer
is brought before law and is tried in accordance with law. Thus, it
is a serious exercise of power by the competent authority. It has
to be apprised of all the relevant materials, and on such
materials, the authority has to take a conscious decision as to
whether the facts would reveal the commission of an offence
under the relevant provisions. No doubt, an elaborate discussion in
that regard in the order is not necessary. But decision making
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:52130
15 WP-12160-2024
on relevant materials should be reflected in the order and if not,
it should be capable of proof before the court.
16. In such circumstances, we are of the view that the trial
court should conduct a proper inquiry as to whether all the
relevant materials were placed before the competent authority
and whether the competent authority has referred to the same so as
to form an opinion as to whether the same constituted an
offence requiring sanction for prosecution. In that view of the matter,
we set aside the impugned order passed by the High Court and
also order dated 27.12.2004 passed in Special Case No. 12 of 2004
by the trial court and remit the matter to the Special Judge (P.C.
Act, 1988), Ujjain, Madhya Pradesh."
16. In the matter of State of Maharashtra through CBI vs.
Mahesh G. Jain reported in (2013) 8 SCC 119, it has been held that
the adequacy of material placed before the sanctioning authority cannot
be gone into by the Court as it does not sit in appeal over the sanction
order and that an order of sanction should not be construed in a pedantic
manner and there should not be a hypertechnical approach to test its
validity. Symphoning technicalities cannot be allowed to become tool
in the hands of accused. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of
Mahesh G. Jain(supra) has culled out the following principles in
this regard:
"14. From the aforesaid authorities the following
principles can be culled out: -
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:52130
16 WP-12160-2024
14.1 It is incumbent on the prosecution to prove that the
valid sanction has been granted by the sanctioning authority
after being satisfied that a case for sanction has been made out.
14.2 The sanction order may expressly show that
the sanctioning authority has perused the material placed before it
and, after consideration of the circumstances, has granted sanction
for prosecution.
14.3 The prosecution may prove by adducing the
evidence that the material was placed before the sanctioning
authority and its satisfaction was arrived at upon perusal of
the material placed before it.
14.4 Grant of sanction is only an administrative function
and the sanctioning authority is required to prima facie reach
the satisfaction that relevant facts would constitute the offence.
14.5 The adequacy of material placed before the
sanctioning authority cannot be gone into by the court as it does
not sit in appeal over the sanction order.
14.6 If the sanctioning authority has perused all the
materials placed before it and some of them have not been proved
that would not vitiate the order of sanction.
14.7 The order of sanction is a pre-requisite as it is
intended to provide a safeguard to a public servant against
frivolous and vexatious litigants, but simultaneously an order
of sanction should not be construed in a pedantic manner and there
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:52130
17 WP-12160-2024
should not be a hyper-technical approach to test its validity."
17. In the matter of State of M.P. vs. Dr. Krishna Chandra
Saksena reported in (1996) 11 SCC 439, it has been held that where
the sanction order is not ex facie illegal or invalid, the
proceeding cannot be quashed. It has further been held that
nonconsideration of relevant documents supporting the accused while
granting sanction cannot be a ground for quashing the proceedings and
such aspect can be examined at the stage of trial for invalidating the
sanction. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in this regard has held that -
"The second ground given by the High Court was to
the effect that the affidavits filed by the staff members of the clinic
of the respondent were not considered by the sanctioning
authority. It is true that the learned Single Judge had observed in
paragraph (21) of his judgment that 'admittedly' in this case,
representation of the petitioner, documents relied by him which
have been lost, and the affidavits of the witnesses present on the
spot who were large in number were not placed before the
sanctioning authority and, therefore, the sanction granted is
definitely bad in law. However it must be kept in view that
without looking at the relevant documents comprised in the file
which were lost during the pendency of the proceedings before the
High Court it would be too premature to say whether the
lost documents were seen by the sanctioning authority or
not before granting sanction. Even otherwise if it is found
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:52130
18 WP-12160-2024
on evidence which may be led at the stage of trial that
the affidavits of the staff were self-serving statements obtained by
the respondent to support his case and were of such a nature that
they could not adversely affect the trap evidence, then it could not
be urged by the prosecution that nonconsideration of such
irrelevant and self-serving evidence would have affected the
efficacy of the sanction. In Short all these aspects could have been
better examined at the stage of trial for invalidating the sanction. It
is too premature at the present stage to hold that all necessary and
relevant evidence must not have been considered by the
sanctioning authority. It appears that the word 'admittedly' as
found in paragraph (21) of the .order passed by the learned
Single Judge appears to have been mentioned loosely and in
an inadvertent manner. Learned senior counsel for the appellant
fairly stated that the sanction order does not on the face of it
indicate that the affidavits of staff members were considered by
the sanctioning authority. But the recitals in the last but one
paragraph of the sanction order show that the sanctioning authority
was satisfied after complete and conscious scrutiny of the records
produced in respect of the allegation against the accused. Now the
question whether all the relevant evidence which would have tilted
the balance in favour of the accused if it was considered by the
sanctioning authority before granting sanction and which was
actually left out of consideration could be examined only at the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:52130
19 WP-12160-2024
stage of trial when the sanctioning authority comes forward as
a prosecution witness to support the sanction order if challenged
during the trial. As that stage was not reached the prosecution
could not have been quashed at the very inception on the
supposition that all relevant documents were not considered by the
sanctioning authority while granting the impugned sanction. We,
therefore, hold that the twin reasons given by the learned Single
Judge of the High Court for quashing the proceedings on the
ground that the sanction was invalid are unsustainable and
unjustified."
18. Having examined the present case in the light of the
above judicial pronouncements, we find that the order of sanction in the
present case is not a nullity and since the petitioner is raising the issue
of improper application of mind by the sanctioning authority, therefore,
he will have an opportunity to raise it during the trial and the challenge
to the sanction order at this stage is premature. Hence, the writ petition
is dismissed, however, with liberty to the petitioner to raise the issue
during the trial and establish it by leading evidence".
11. In the light of above, there is no illegality int he impugned order,
calling for interference. Accordingly, this writ petition fails and is dismissed.
(VIVEK AGARWAL) (AVANINDRA KUMAR SINGH)
JUDGE JUDGE
AR
