Telangana High Court

C. Shobha Rani vs The State Of Telangana on 29 November, 2022

Bench: K.Surender

      HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
                       AT HYDERABAD
                            *****
            Criminal Petition No.10267 OF 2022

Between:
C.Shobha Rani.                               ... Petitioner

                           And
The State of Telangana,
rep. by its Spl. Public Prosecutor
for CBI, High Court, Hyderabad.            ... Respondent



DATE OF JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED:           29.11.2022

Submitted for approval.

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER


 1    Whether Reporters of Local
      newspapers may be allowed to        Yes/No
      see the Judgments?

 2    Whether the copies of judgment
      may be marked to Law                Yes/No
      Reporters/Journals

 3    Whether Their
      Ladyship/Lordship wish to see       Yes/No
      the fair copy of the Judgment?


                                         __________________
                                          K.SURENDER, J
                                               2


                   * THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K. SURENDER
                                  + CRL.P No. 10267 of 2022



% Dated 29.11.2022


# C.Shobha Rani                                               ... Petitioner

                                        And
$ The State of Telangana,
rep. by its Spl. Public Prosecutor
for CBI, High Court, Hyderabad.                               ... Respondent




! Counsel for the Petitioners: Sri K.R.K.V.Prasad


^ Counsel for the Respondents: Special Public Prosecutor for CBI



>HEAD NOTE:

? Cases referred
1
    (2004) 2 Supreme Court Cases 65

2 2010 CRI.L.J 1436

3 2014 (1) ALD (Crl.) 120 (AP)

4 2011 (2) Crimes 116

5 AIR 1996 Supreme Court 186

6 (2014) 13 Supreme Court Cases 70

7 (2010) 14 Supreme Court Cases 527
                                3


           HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER

          CRIMINAL PETITION No.10267 OF 2022
ORDER:

1. This petition is filed to quash the proceedings against the

petitioner/A6 in CC No.7 of 2017 on the file of the Court of I

Additional Special Judge for CBI Cases, Hyderabad.

2. The petitioner is amongst ten accused, who are being

prosecuted for entering into criminal conspiracy during the

years 2010 to 2012 in the matter of credit facility sanctioned

to A1 company by Bank of India, Banjara Hills branch where

the petitioner was working as Chief Manager in the said Bank.

3. The facts of the case are not necessary since the ground

raised by the petitioner is that the competent authority for

grant of sanction declined to grant sanction for prosecution on

24.01.2015. However, the very same authority has granted

sanction on 09.11.2016 on the very same material, on the

basis of which sanction was refused earlier.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the

sanctioning authority Sri Kul Bhushan Jain, who was the

General Manger, NBG (South), Chennai has declined to grant

sanction on 24.01.2015 by giving details running into ten

pages. A chart was prepared by the authority reflecting the

lapses as per the CBI report vis-à-vis lapses as per the internal

investigation report, accordingly, commented on the role

played by this petitioner. Having considered the entire

material, the competent authority declined to grant sanction.

5. Learned counsel further submits that the learned Special

Judge has declined to discharge this petitioner on the ground

that the judgments cited by the petitioner seeking discharge

were rendered under the inherent powers of the Hon'ble

Supreme Court and also the High Court, as such, the learned

Special Judge has no such power and declined to discharge

the petitioner, which is erroneous. In support of his

contentions, he relied upon the judgments of the Hon'ble

Supreme Court in the cases of: i) Bahadursinh Lakhubhai

Gohil v. Jagdishbhai M.Kamalia1, wherein the Hon'ble

Supreme Court held that if any statutory authority takes a

(2004) 2 Supreme Court Cases 65

decision at the behest or on the suggestion of a person who

has no statutory role to play, the same would be ultra vires.

Referring to the facts of the present case, he argues that at the

instance of CBI, the sanction was again granted, which was

earlier refused. He also relied upon the judgments in the

cases of; ii) State of Punjab and another v. Mohammed Iqbal

Bhatti2 in which the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that when

grant of sanction was refused, the very same authority

granting sanction again without there being any fresh material

cannot be said to be proper. Similar view was taken in the

judgment cited in the case of Mohd.Aleemuddin v. State of

Andhra Pradesh3 and Ashok Shankarrao Chavan v. His

Excellency Shri Ch.Vidyasagar Rao (Bombay) (DB).

6. On the other hand, learned Special Public Prosecutor

submits that there is nothing wrong with the order of the

sanctioning authority granting sanction on 09.11.2016,

though refused on 24.01.2015. He also submits that earlier,

2010 CRI.L.J 1436

2014 (1) ALD (Crl.) 120 (AP)

the competent authority thought it fit to prosecute them

departmentally. However, a decision was taken subsequently

to grant sanction to the CBI to be prosecuted before the

Special Court, which cannot be found fault with.

7. Learned Special Public Prosecutor relied upon the

judgment in the case of Avinash Mathur v. State of

Rajasthan4, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that

granting sanction by the State government to prosecute under

the Prevention of Corruption Act and under Section 197 of

Cr.P.C was correct. He also relied upon the judgment in the

case of Superintendent of Police (CBI) v. Deepak

Chowdhary5, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that

order quashing sanction of an accused on the ground that he

was exonerated by the disciplinary authority was not proper.

He also relied upon the judgment of Chandan Kumar Basu v.

State of Bihar6, in which, the Hon'ble Supreme Court while

2011 (2) Crimes 116

AIR 1996 Supreme Court 186

(2014) 13 Supreme Court Cases 70

dealing with Section 197 of Cr.P.C, held that that correctness

or otherwise of the sanction granted can be decided at a stage

after evidence was adduced. For the said reasons, learned

Special Public Prosecutor argues the correctness or otherwise

of the sanction can only be decided after full-fledged trial and

when the sanction was granted by the competent authority,

this Court under inherent powers cannot interfere and quash

the sanction order.

8. There is no dispute regarding the proposition laid down

in the judgments cited by the learned Special Public

Prosecutor for CBI. However, none of the judgments dealt with

the issue in question. The main ground that is agitated by the

petitioner is having refused sanction earlier and without there

being any fresh material, sanction was granted subsequently.

9. Having gone through the sanction order, the sanctioning

authority, who is the General Manager i.e., Sri Kul Bhushan

Jain at the relevant time has commented at page 10 as

follows:

"The entire likely loss of Rs.8.49 cr also cannot be attributed to her as only 2 disbursements, amounting to Rs.2.56 cr, were made during her tenure. However, since she had made the initial disbursement without compliance of pre-disbursement terms this allegation can be partially attributed to her. Hence the above points do not indicate any 'Conspiracy' entered into by her, with STPL and others, for defrauding the Bank. Arrangement under Section 13 (1)(c ) & (d) of the PC Act entails adducing of some positive evidence regarding the mala fide intent on the part of the accused and for having entered into Conspiracy with the other accused. The evidence cited by the CBI falls short in this regard and the acts and omissions delineated against Mrs.Shobha Rani by them, amounts to only gross procedural lapses."

10. Thereafter, on 09.11.2016, the very same sanctioning

authority has not given any reasons for granting sanction on

09.11.2016 but observed as follows:

"The undersigned being the competent authority in the capacity of Disciplinary Authority in the instant matter, declined to accord sanction for prosecution earlier on 24.01.2015 by citing the above mentioned reasons. However, after going through the entire records of the case thoroughly once again, I, Kul Bhushan Jain, General Manager, National Banking Group (South), of Bank of India, being competent authority to take disciplinary action under Bank of India, Officer Employees' (Discipline & Appeal) Regulations, 1976, and being the authority to accord sanction in exercise of powers vested u/s 19(1)(c ) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, do hereby accord sanction to prosecute the above said Smt. C.Shobha Rani, then Chief Manager, BOI, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad, presently working as AGM (Scale-V), BOI, Large Corporate Branch, Hyderabad."

11. The sanctioning authority has not given any reasons for

granting sanction on 09.11.2016 except stating that he has

gone through the entire records thoroughly once again. In fact,

the sanctioning authority has gone through the entire record

thoroughly prior to 24.01.2015 and refused sanction as seen

from the sanction order itself. What are the findings that the

sanctioning authority-General Manager has found once again

on 09.11.2016 to grant sanction, having declined it earlier are

not at all stated. When the sanction granted is bereft of any

reasons and granted stating that the records were gone

through thoroughly once again would not suffice to grant

sanction. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the judgment of

State of Himachal Pradesh v. Nishant Sareen7, it is held as

follows:

" 13. In our opinion, a change of opinion per se on the same materials cannot be a ground for reviewing or reconsidering the earlier order refusing to grant sanction. However, in a case where fresh materials have been collected by the investigating agency subsequent to the earlier order and placed before the sanctioning authority and on that basis, the matter is reconsidered by the sanctioning authority and in light of the fresh materials an opinion is formed that sanction to prosecute the public servant may be granted, there may not be any impediment to adopt such a course.

14. Insofar as the present case is concerned, it is not even the case of the appellant that fresh materials were collected by the investigating agency and placed before the sanctioning authority for reconsideration and/or for review of the earlier order refusing to grant sanction. As a matter of fact, from the perusal of the subsequent

(2010) 14 Supreme Court Cases 527

Order dated 15-3-2008 it is clear that on the same materials, the sanctioning authority has changed its opinion and ordered sanction to prosecute the respondent which, in our opinion, is clearly impermissible."

The Hon'ble Supreme Court has quashed the sanction

orders which were granted subsequently on the very same

material having declined to grant sanction earlier. The said

judgment is squarely applicable to the facts in the present

case.

12. There is no necessity to conclude trial as argued by the

learned Public Prosecutor to ascertain whether the subsequent

grant of sanction is correct or not. On the basis of the sanction

order itself, it is apparent that there was thorough discussion

of the competent authority in declining the sanction on

24.01.2015 and absolutely, no reasons are given for granting

of sanction subsequently on 09.11.2016. When the said