Lal Bahadur Singh vs State of U.P.

Heard learned Counsel for Petitioner and learned A.G.A.

By means of this petition preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the Petitioner has prayed with respect to quashing of the Government Order No. 2010-106 dated 25.08.2010 passed by the Director, Rajya Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samti, U.P., opposite party No. ,3.

It comes out that the Director, opposite party No. 3 has accorded sanction to prosecute the Petitioner with respect to the case registered vide Case Crime No. 76/1999 u/s 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, police station Kotwali, District Lakhimpur Kheri.

Learned Counsel for the Petitioner argued that while getting sanction against the Petitioner the sanctioning authority has not applied its mind and there is no sufficient material on record. It has further been submitted that the Petitioner has retired and grant of sanction u/s 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act at this juncture is too harsh. The impugned order cannot be allowed to stand and is liable to be quashed.

The learned Additional Government Advocate argued that sanction order(impugned order) has been passed by the opposite party No. 3 under the garb and powers vested in him to grant sanction u/s 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act. He placed two judgments of the apex Court rendered in the case of Parkash Singh Badal and Anr. v. State of Punjab and Ors. reported in (2007) 1 SCC 193 as well as in the case of Satya Narayan Sharma Vs. State of Rajasthan, In the case of Prakash Singh Badal and another(supra), he placed reliance upon paragraphs-47 and 48, which are being reproduced herein below:

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 required 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 any generalized guidelines in that regard.

The sanction in the instant case related to the offences relatable to the 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.

In the case of Satya Narayan Sharma (supra), the learned Additional Government Advocate placed reliance upon paragraph-22, which is being reproduced herein below.:

22 I am in respectful agreement with the judgment drafted by Brother Variava, J. When Parliament imposed an undiluted ban against granting stay of any proceedings involving an offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short "the Act") on any ground whatsoever, no court shall circumvent the said ban through any means. The reasons which prompted Parliament to divest all the courts in India of the power to stay the proceedings in the trial courts involving any such offence, is to foreclose even the possible chance of delaying such trials on account of any party to such proceedings raising any question before the High Court during the pendency of trial proceedings.

The apex court has settled the law to the effect that it being prerogative of the sanctioning authority to assess and evaluate documents and materials placed before him and it shall not be open to the courts to again re-evaluate the same. It comes out that the authority concerned has applied its mind and e valuated the documents and materials placed before him.

Ordinarily, satisfaction recorded by the sanctioning authority is not open to judicial review under extraordinary remedy of Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It is settled law that the satisfaction recorded by the competent authority ordinarily may not be substituted by this Court from its own satisfaction taking contrary view after re-appreciating evidence on record. While exercising the power of judicial review it is for the trial court to look into the matter as observed by a Division Bench of this Court in Writ Petition No. 10503(M/B) of 2009 Vishwanath Chaturvedi v. Union of India''. Appreciation of evidence collected by the investigating agency is a subject matter on which firstly it is for the trial court to apply its mind.

In view of the above, we do not consider it proper to evaluate the sanction order(impugned order) at this juncture.

The writ petition is dismissed accordingly.