Madras High Court
Narasimman vs State Rep.By on 28 March, 2022
Crl.O.P.No.10368 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Orders RESERVED ON : 29.06.2022
Orders DELIVERED ON : 18.07.2022
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE RMT.TEEKAA RAMAN
Crl.O.P.No.10368 of 2022
and
Crl.M.P.No.6182 of 2022
Narasimman ... Petitioner/Petitioner/Accused
Vs.
State Rep.by
The Deputy Superintendent of Police,
Vigilance and Anti-Corruption,
Salem Detachment / Salem
(Cr.No.8/AC/2018) ...Respondent/Complainant/Complainant
PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition has been filed under Section 482 of
Cr.P.C, to call for the records of the order dated 28.03.2022 made in
Crl.M.P.No.4653 of 2021 in Spl.C.C.No.1 of 2020 on the file of Chief
Judicial at Krishnagiri and set aside the same.
For Petitioner : Mr.N.Ponraj
For Respondent : Mr.C.E.Pratap,
Government Advocate (Crl.Side)
*******
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1/9
Crl.O.P.No.10368 of 2022
ORDER
This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to call for the
records of the order dated 28.03.2022 made in Crl.M.P.No.4653 of
2021 in Spl.C.C.No.1 of 2020 on the file of Chief Judicial at Krishnagiri
and set aside the same.
2. The accused is the petitioner herein.
3. Pursuant to the complaint given by the defacto-
complainant, he lodged a complaint after completing all formalities,
the respondent vigilance and Anti-Corruption has registered a case in
Crime No.8/AC/2008 under Section 7A of the P.C ACT 1988 as
amended in 2018. Thereafter, a trap proceedings was organized and
final report was filed and the case is taken up as a Special
S.C.No.1/2020. Pending the above special case, the accused has filed
discharge petition and for the purpose of determination of the
discharge petition he also filed C.M.P.No.4653 of 2022 under Section
91 of the Cr.P.C to send for the documents (file containing request for
sanction) which is kept in office, Additional Chief Secretary to
Government Rural Development and Panchayat Raj, Chennai).
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.No.10368 of 2022
4. In the discharge petition No.1876 of 2020, he has raised
the plea that there is no prima facie material and there is no proper
sanction to prosecute the petitioner under Section 207 of the Cr.P.C. In
order to substantiate that there is no proper sanction and hence for
the said purpose he has filed the above C.M.P to send for the files
relating to sanction of prosecution by the head of the Department.
5. The police have filed a counter stating that the sanction
file is a confidential document and it is not necessary to produce the
document at this stage and relied upon the decision 2006 2 MLJ
Crl.460 Madras High Court [Mr.K.Pannerselvam and other Versus
Deputy Superintendent of Police, Vigilance and Anti-Corruption,
Kadalur], on the point that the question of invoking Section 91 of the
cr.P.C at the initial stage to framing of charge would not arise.
6. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the
learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the respondent.
7. In the decision reported in the Hon'ble High Court of
Madras, Criminal O.P.No.14168 of 2017 and Crl.M.P.No.9047 of 2017,
"N.Seenivasagan Vs.The State represented by the Deputy
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.No.10368 of 2022
Superintendent of Police, Vigilance and Anti Corruption, Chennai".
(a) "13.The sine qua non of an order under this
Section is a consideration by the Court that the production of
the documents concerned is desirable and necessary for the
purposes of the trial Section 91 does not confer absolute
right on the accused."
(b). It is held that where the document has no relevance on
the case in hand, it is not desirable for the Court to summon the
documents, the Court shall reject the petition filed under Section 91.
Section 91 is not subjected to Section 172 & 173 of the code, the
Prohibitions contained in Sections 172 and 173 of the Code do not
crib, cabin and confine the power of the Court. Power of Court under
Section 91 of Cr.P.C., for summoning and production of documents is
one of absolute discretion.
(c) The only condition for exercise of such discretion is that
the Court must be of the opinion that the production of documents on
the ground that prosecution was not relying on such documents are
not acceptable one.
9. The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) has relied
upon the decision in 2006 (2) MLJ Criminal 460 Madras High Court,
Mr.K.Pannerselvam and others Versus Deputy Superintendent of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.No.10368 of 2022
Police, Vigilance and Anti-Corruption, Kadalur, Hon'ble Madras High
Court held that the question of invoking Section 91 of Cr.P.C at the
initial stage of framing charges would not arise, since the defence of
the accused is not at the stage.
10. It appears that the petitioner/accused has filed petition
for discharge on the ground that there is no prima facie material and
the sanction of prosecution is improper and has been granted in a
mechanical manner without application of mind.
11. In the decision reported in 2011-2 L.W(Crl.) 609 [Karanit
Singh v.State rep.by Inspector of Police, CBI/ACB, Chennai] wherein
G.M.Akbar Ali.J., has elaborately discussed the matter by referring and
following the settled principles by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. In this
case also, a dispute with regard to the right available to the accused to
peruse the file relating to sanction has arisen. Concluding the
Judgment, the learned Judge has affirmed that the matters available in
the sanction file is only to the perusal of the Court to satisfy itself that
the sanctioning authority had applied his mind on the facts placed
before him, while according sanction and not for the accused or his
authorized agent to look into it. I am in respectful agreement with the
finding recorded by the learned Judge".
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.No.10368 of 2022
12. It is to be stated that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in 2014
Volume 14 SCC 295 [C.B.I Vs.Ashok Kumar Aggarwal] has held that the
stage of examining the validity of sanction is during the trial. Framing
of charge is a pre-trial procedure and therefore, on the pre charge
framing stage the question of challenge the sanction of prosecution
does not arise. At this juncture, it is only for the satisfaction of the
learned Judicial Magistrate or Special Judge to satisfy the grant of
sanction whether the sanction of prosecution is proper or in the
mechanical manner is matter for trial. Only when the sanctioning
authority is in witness box he has to be confronted with cross-
examination and hence, I find that the order of sanction issued by the
sanctioning authority, cannot be tested without the evidence of the
sanctioning authority and therefore, the file containing a request for
sanction is not necessary at the stage of the framing of the charge and
therefore, I find that this petition is not maintainable in law and is
devoid of merits and the same is hereby dismissed. The order passed
by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Krishnagiri, on similar lines
does not suffer from any illegality or irregularity warranting
interference in exercising powers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.No.10368 of 2022
13. Accordingly, this Criminal Original petition is dismissed.
Consequently, connected Crl.M.P is closed
18.07.2022
nvi
Internet : Yes
To
1. The Deputy Superintendent of Police,
Vigilance and Anti-Corruption,
Salem Detachment / Salem
2. The Public Prosecutor,
High Court, Madras.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.No.10368 of 2022
RMT.TEEKAA RAMAN,J.,
nvi
order in
Crl.O.P.No.10368 of 2022 and
Crl.M.P.No.6182 of 2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.No.10368 of 2022
18.07.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
