Ravinder Kumar Sharma vs State

V.P. Vaish, J.—Petitioner Ravinder Kumar Sharma by filing the present petition under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as ''Cr.P.C.'') read with Article 227 of the Constitution of India assails order dated 16.05.2014 and 22.05.2014 passed by learned Special Judge (PC Act-05) , ACB (Central) Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi whereby the application filed on behalf of petitioner was dismissed.

In a nut shell the facts of the case are that on 28.09.2011 complainant Mr. Satish Kumar Aggarwal made a complaint lodging that the petitioner Ravinder Kumar Sharma, Junior Engineer, DDA was demanding bribe from him for de-sealing the house. A trap was laid by the officers of the Anti Corruption Branch and an amount of Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees Fifty thousand) were recovered from the possession of the petitioner. The numbers of currency notes matched with the numbers of currency notes recorded by Anti Corruption Branch in pre-raid proceedings. The left hand of the petitioner was washed with the transparent solution of sodium carbonate and it turned pink, establishing that petitioner has physically accepted the bribe amount. Thereafter, the case was registered and the petitioner was arrested. The sanction for prosecution, as required under Section 19 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as ''the Act'') was obtained. On completion of investigation charge-sheet was filed. Therefore, charges for the offence under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of the Act were framed by the trial court on 01.04.2014.

The petitioner moved an application seeking discharge which was dismissed by learned trial court vide order dated 16.05.2014. The petitioner moved second application seeking discharge/ acquittal which was dismissed by learned trial court vide impugned order dated 22.05.2014. Feeling aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner filed the present petition.

Learned senior counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner was appointed as Junior Engineer, Group ''C'' in Delhi Development Authority on 13.05.1986 and Vice Chairman was the appointing authority. The sanction under Section 19 of the Act to prosecute the petitioner was granted by the Commissioner (Personnel) , DDA vide order dated 06.09.2013. Therefore, she further submits that the Commissioner (Personnel) , DDA being subordinate to Vice Chairman, DDA was not competent to remove the petitioner from his office and, therefore, not competent to accord sanction for prosecution.

Another submission of learned senior counsel for the petitioner is that gazette notification dated 01.03.1994 cannot be made applicable with retrospective effect. She has also relied upon judgments in Rama Tyagi Vs. Delhi Development Authority ; State Inspector of Police Vs. Surya Sankaram Karri, .

Per contra learned APP for the State submits that the case is already fixed for prosecution evidence. Mr. M.K. Gupta, Commissioner (Personnel) , DDA was accorded sanction under Section 19 of the Act and was a competent authority to grant sanction.

I have carefully considered the submissions made by learned senior counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

Before adverting to the facts of the case it is necessary to reproduce the relevant provisions of Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, which reads as under:-

"19. Previous sanction necessary for prosecution.-

(1) No court shall take cognizance of an offence punishable under sections 7, 10, 11, 13 and 15 alleged to have been committed by a public servant, except with the previous sanction, -

(a) in the case of a person who is employed in connection with the affairs of the Union and is not removable from his office save by or with the sanction of the Central Government, of that Government;

(b) in the case of a person who is employed in connection with the affairs of a State and is not removable from his office save by or with the sanction of the State Government, of that Government;

(c) in the case of any other person, of the authority competent to remove him from his office.

(2) Where for any reason whatsoever any doubt arises as to whether the previous sanction as required under sub-section (1) should be given by the Central Government or the State Government or any other authority, such sanction shall be given by that Government or authority which would have been competent to remove the public servant from his office at the time when the offence was alleged to have been committed.

(3) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974) , -

(a) no finding, sentence or order passed by a special Judge shall be reversed or altered by a court in appeal, confirmation or revision on the ground of the absence of, or any error, omission or irregularity in, the sanction required under sub-section (1) , unless in the opinion of that court, a failure of justice has in fact been occasioned thereby;

(b) no court shall stay the proceedings under this Act on the ground of any error, omission or irregularity in the sanction granted by the authority, unless it is satisfied that such error, omission or irregularity has resulted in a failure of justice;

(c) no court shall stay the proceedings under this Act on any other ground and no court shall exercise the powers of revision in relation to any interlocutory order passed in any inquiry, trial, appeal or other proceedings.

(4) In determining under sub-section (3) whether the absence of, or any error, omission or irregularity in, such sanction has occasioned or resulted in a failure of justice the court shall have regard to the fact whether the objection could and should have been raised at any earlier stage in the proceedings. Explanation. - For the purposes of this section, -

(a) error includes competency of the authority to grant sanction;

(b) a sanction required for prosecution includes reference to any requirement that the prosecution shall be at the instance of a specified authority or with the sanction of a specified person or any requirement of a similar nature."

It is a settled law that any error, omission or irregularity in the grant of sanction will not affect any finding, sentence or order passed by a competent court unless in the opinion of the court a failure of justice has been occasioned.

A similar question cropped up before the Apex Court in the case of State of Bihar and Others Vs. Rajmangal Ram, wherein it was observed as under:-

"4. Though learned counsels for both sides have elaborately taken us through the materials on record including the criminal complaints lodged against the respondents; the pleadings made in support of the challenge before the High Court, the respective sanction orders as well as the relevant provisions of the Rules of Executive Business, we do not consider it necessary to traverse the said facts in view of the short question of law arising which may be summed up as follows:-

''Whether a criminal prosecution ought to be interfered with by the High Courts at the instance of an accused who seeks mid-course relief from the criminal charges levelled against him on grounds of defects/omissions or errors in the order granting sanction to prosecute including errors of jurisdiction to grant such sanction?''

xxx xxx xxx

The above view also found reiteration in Prakash Singh Badal and Another vs. State of Punjab and Others wherein it was, inter alia, held that mere omission, error or irregularity in sanction is not to be considered fatal unless it has resulted in failure of justice. In Prakash Singh Badal (supra) it was further held that Section 19(1) of the PC Act is a matter of procedure and does not go to the root of jurisdiction. On the same line is the decision of this Court in R. Venkatkrishnan vs. Central Bureau of Investigation. In fact, a three Judge Bench in State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Virender Kumar Tripathi while considering an identical issue, namely, the validity of the grant of sanction by the Additional Secretary of the Department of Law and Legislative Affairs of the Government of Madhya Pradesh instead of the authority in the parent department, this Court held that in view of Section 19(3) of the PC Act, interdicting a criminal proceeding mid-course on ground of invalidity of the sanction order will not be appropriate unless the court can also reach the conclusion that failure of justice had been occasioned by any such error, omission or irregularity in the sanction. It was further held that failure of justice can be established not at the stage of framing of charge but only after the trial has commenced and evidence is led (Para 10 of the Report) ."

In view of the dictum of the Apex Court in Rajmangal Ram''s case (supra) , in my considered view, it is not appropriate to quash the proceedings on the ground of invalidity of the sanction during the pendency of the trial. The stage of considering the same shall be after the evidence has been adduced by both the parties.

In the light of the aforesaid discussion, the petition is without any merit, the same deserves to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed.

Crl. M.A. No. 9303/2014

The application is dismissed as infructuous.