CaseTitle:
Devender Gupta Vs. CBI
Date:
28th April, 2022
Bench:
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA DHARI SINGH
Parties:
Petitioner – Devender Gupta
Respondent – CBI
Subject
A petition was filed under section 482 of the CPC read with Article 227 of the Constitution of India praying to set aside the order passed by the Lower Court stating that the sanction obtained under Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act was invalid and therefore made the case void ab initio.
Important Provisions
Section 13 in The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 – Criminal misconduct by a public servant.
Section 19 in The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - Previous sanction necessary for prosecution.
Overview
- The petitioner was a public servant who was accused under Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) and 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
- An order dated April 2008 framed charges against the petitioner under Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) and 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act for disproportionate assets of Rs.9,48,19,816/-
- Charges were also framed under Section 109 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
- The petitioner then prayed for dropping criminal proceedings pending against him since the sanction of the case required under Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act was not obtained from the corporation which was a competent authority.
- Therefore, the order passed by the judge without obtaining the sanction from the corporation as mentioned under section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act was without jurisdiction and hence void.
- The application was dismissed thereby the petitioner filed this present appeal to challenge the validity of the order.
Issues raised
Whether the sanction provided by the Commissioner was valid under Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act?
Advancements made by the appellants
- The learned counsel for the appellants argued that in the cases of G.S. Matharoo (Supra) and CBI vs. Ram Bhaj Banal & Anr passed in Crl.Rev. P. 68/2013 on 14th September 2013, which settled down the position that in cases of Group 'A' employees of the MCD, it was the Corporation, that was the competent authority to grant sanction in terms of Section 19 of the PC Act and not the Commissioner, MCD.
- The petitioner was a Group-A employee of MCD therefore the prosecution of the petitioner without jurisdiction was ‘bad in law’ making the entire proceedings void ab initio.
- The lack of valid sanction prohibits a court from taking cognizance of an offence under Section 19(1) of the Prevention of Corruption Act.
- If the protection under Section 19(1) of the Prevention of Corruption Act was not provided then the Act also stands vitiated.
- The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Goa Vs. Babu Thomas (2005) 8 SCC 130 had observed that the error of incompetent authority providing sanction was so fundamental that it invalidated the proceedings conducted by the Court.
- In the case of State of Uttarakhand vs. Yogendra Nath Arora & Anr., (2013)14 SCC 299 the Supreme Court quashed the prosecution initiated against the person without valid sanction.
- In the case of State of Mizoram vs. C. Sangnghina, Criminal Appeal No.1322/18, the petitioner was discharged due to lack of proper sanction even before the commencement of the trial.
- The sanction granted by the Commissioner of MCD was not a valid sanction and prayed to dismiss the impugned order.
Advancements made by the Respondent
- The learned counsel for the Respondent argued that there was no illegality in the impugned order.
- The Commissioner was the disciplinary authority to impose all penalties on the Category A post officers who were appointed by the Commissioner.
- The petitioner in this case was appointed by the Commissioner MCD. Thereby, the removal authority in this case would be the Commissioner itself.
- Under Section 59(d) of the DMC Act the Commissioner was competent to grant sanction for prosecution of the petitioner.
- The learned counsel stated that the judge had passed the order rightly and appropriately after considering all relevant factors.
Judgment Analysis
- The Court stated that a combined reading of sub-sections (3) and (4) revealed that, notwithstanding anything in the Cr.P.C., no finding, sentence, or order made by a Special Judge should be reversed or altered by a Court in appeal, confirmation, or revision on the basis of the absence of, or any error, omission, or irregularity in the sanction required under sub-Section (1), unless that Court believes that a failure of justice had occurred.
- The Court relied upon the case of Town Investments Ltd. v. Department of Environmental Protection (1977) 1 All ER 813 and stated that the superior Court, should conduct a thorough investigation to determine whether there was a genuine breakdown of justice or if it was just a ruse.
- Specific provisions were incorporated in Section 19(3) of the PC Act as well as Section 465 of the Cr.P.C., which, among other things, makes it clear that any error, omission, or irregularity in the grant of sanction would not affect any finding, sentence, or order passed by a competent Court unless the Court believed that there was a failure of justice.
- While examining the petitioner's application for the dismissal of the criminal proceedings pending against him, the Judge correctly concluded that the question of sanction validity was linked to the question of whether an invalid sanction had resulted in a failure of justice, and that the issue cannot be addressed during the trial unless the evidence was completely recorded.
Conclusion
The Court concluded by stating that it did not find any illegality or error in the impugned order and did not find any merit to quash the entire criminal proceedings against the petitioner. Thereby, the petition was dismissed.
Learn the practical aspects of CrPC HERE, CPC HERE, IPC HERE, Evidence Act HERE, Family Laws HERE, DV Act HERE
Click here to download the original copy of the judgement
