BALBHADRA PARASHARversusSTATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

                   [2015] 14 S.C.R. 987


                BALBHADRAPARASHAR                             A
                             v.
             STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
            (Criminal Appeal No. 2431 of 2014)
                                                              B
                  DECEMBER 10, 2015
         [ANIL R. DAVE AND DIPAK MISRA, J.]
      Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - s.13(1)(e) -
 Sanction to prosecute the accused - Grant of sanction -
 Validity- Held: While granting sanction, a detailed reasoned C
judgment is not required to be passed - On facts, nothing
 brought on record to substantiate that the sanction was
 granted in an absolutely mechanicaJ manner- The authority
 concerned had applied its' mind - Sanction granted in the
 case did not suffer from any infirmity so as to declare it as D
illegal.
     Makhanlal Vithaldas Chauhan v. State of Gujarat
     (1997) 7 sec 622 : 1997 (3) Suppl. SCR 705;
     State of Karnataka v. Ameerjan (2007) 11 SCC
                                                              E
     273 : 2007 (9) SCR 1105; and Prakash Singh
     Badal v. State of Punjab (2007) 1 SCC 1 : 2006
     (10) Suppl. SCR 197- referred to.
                     Case Law Reference
     1997 (3) Suppl. SCR 705        referred to..    Para 5   F
     2007 (9) SCR 1105              referred to.    Para 6
     2006 (10) Suppl. SCR 197       referred to.     Para 7
    CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal
Appeal No. 2431 of 2014.                      G
     From the Judgment and Order dated 25.07 .2014 of the
High Court of Madhya Pradesh Bench at Gwalior in
Miscellaneous Criminal Case No. 4277 of 2014.
                                                              H
                            987
988         SUPREME COURT REPORTS                   [2015] 14S.C.R.


A          Prashant Shukla, Pashupathi Nath Razdan, Advs., for the
      Appellant.
           .The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
             DIPAK MISRA, J. 1. In this appeal, by special leave, the
B     appellant has called in question the legal propriety of the order
      dated 25.07 .2014 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court
      Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur, Gwalior Bench in M.Cr.C. No. 4277
      of 2014 whereby the High Court has declined to interfere in the
      petition preferred under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal
      Procedure, 1973 (for short, "the CrPC") wherein the grant of
C     sanction was called in question.
            2. The facts, in a nutshell, are that the appellant was a
      Manager of the Primary Agriculture Credit Co-operative
      Society, Village Pipraua, District Gwalior. On the basis of
      allegations made, a case under Section 13(1)(e) of the
D     Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short, 'the 1988 Act')
      was registered against him. After investigation it was found
      that he had secured assets and property of Rs. 1,05,44,604/-
      and, accordingly, sanction was sought to launch prosecution
      against him, and it was granted. As the factual matrix would
E     reveal, the trial court proceeded and charges were framed
      against him. The order offraming the charge was assailed in
      a Writ Petition which stood dismissed.
           3. In the petition under Section 482 CrPC it was
F     contended before the High Court that the sanction to prosecute
      the accused had not been granted in accordance with law as
      there had been no application of mind. The High Court, after
      hearing the learned counsel forthe parties, has held as under:-
           "We have perused the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme
G          Court and facts and evidence on record of the case. In
           our opinion, the sanctioning authority has considered all
           the facts of the case. There is prima facie evidence
           against the petitioner in regard to acquiring property and
           assets in excess to his known source of income. In
H
        BALBHADRA PARAS HAR v. STATE OF MADHYA                    989
               PRADESH [DIPAK MISRA, J.]

        granting sanction to prosecute under the Prevention of A
        Corruption Act, 1988 it is not necessary for the authority
        to pass a detailed reasoned judgment and order. The
        authority has to apply its mind. Even otherwise, there is
        sufficient evidence prime facie to prosecute the
        petitioner."                                               B
      4. In this appeal on a perusal of the grounds, we find that
there are numerous reference to M.P. Vishesh Nyayalaya
Adiniya, 2011. The constitutionality of the said Act was not
questioned before the High Court as it could not have been
questioned under Section 482 Cr.P.C. However, we may note C
that almost similar Acts, namely, the Orissa Special Courts
Act, 2006 and the Bihar Special Courts Act, 2009, have been
treated to be valid by this Court in Civil Appeal Nos. 6448-6452
of 2011 titled Yogendra Kumar Jaiswal Etc. v. State of Bihar
&Ors.                                                             D
     5. It is contended that the grant of sanction is not an empty
formality and there has to be application of mind in support of
the said sanction. We have been commimded to Mansukh/al
Vithaldas Chauhan v. State of Gujarat wherein a two-Judge E
Bench while dealing with grant of sanction has observed:-
        "18. The validity of the sanction would, therefore, depend
        upon the material placed before the sanctioning authority
        and the fact that all the relevant facts, material and
        evidence have been considered by the sanctioning F
        authority. Consideration implies application of mind. The
        order of sanction must ex facie disclose that the
        sanctioning authority had considered the evidence and
        other material placed before it. This fact can also be
        established by extrinsic evidence by placing the relevant G
        files before the Court to show that all relevant facts were
        considered by the sanctioning authority. (See also
        Jaswant Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 1958 SC 124, and
        State of Biharv. PP Sharma, 1992 Supp. (1) SCC 222.)
1
    (1997) 7   sec 622                                            H
990            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                   [2015] 14 S.C.R.


A             19. Since the validity of "sanction" depends on the
              applicability of mind by the sanctioning authority to the
              facts of the case as also the material and evidence
              collected during investigation, it necessarily follows that
              the sanctioning authority has to apply its own independent
B             mind for the generation of genuine satisfaction whether
              prosecution has to be sanctioned or not. The mind of
              the sanctioning authority should not be under pressure
              from any quarter nor should any external force be acting
              upon it to take a decision one way or the other. Since the
c             discretion to grant or not to grant sanction vests absolutely
              in the sanctioning authority, its discretion should be shown
              to have not been affected by any extraneous
              consideration. If it is shown that the sanctioning authority
              was unable to apply its independent mind for anyfeason
D             whatsoever or was under an obligation or compulsion
              or constraint to grant the sanction, the order will be bad
              for the reason that the discretion of the authority "not to
              sanction" was taken away and it was compelled to act
              mechanically to sanction the prosecution."
                                                         2
E           6. In State of Karnataka v. Ameerjan , while dealing
      with the grant of sanction, it has been held thus:-
              "9. We agree that an order of sanction should not be
              construed in a pedantic manner. But, it is also well settled
              that the purpose for which an order of sanction is required
 F
              to be passed should always be borne in mind. Ordinarily,
              the sanctioning authority is the best person to judge as
              to whether the public servant concerned should receive.
              the protection under the Act by refusing to accord sanction
              for his prosecution or not.
G
              10. For the aforementioned purpose, indisputably,
              application of mind on the part of the sanctioning authority
              is imperative. The order granting sanction must be
              demonstrative of the fact that there had been proper
 H    2
          (2007) 11 sec 213
    BAl..BHADRA PARAS HAR v. STATE OF MADHYA                        991
             PRADESH [DIPAK MISRA, J.]

       application of mind on the part of the sanctioning aut~ority. A
       We have noticed hereinbefore that the sanctioning
       authority had purported to pass the order of sanction
       solely on the basis of the report made by the Inspector
       General of Police, Karnataka Lokayukta. Even the said
       report has not been brought on record. Thus, whether in B
       the said report, either in the body thereof or by annexing
       therewith the relevant documents, IG Police, Karnataka
       Lokayukta had placed on record the materials collected
       on inyestigation of the matter which would prima facie
       establish existence of evidence in regard to th·e c
       commission of the offence by the public servant
       concerned is not evident. Ordinarily, before passing an
       order of sanction, the entire records containing the
    · materials collected against the accused should be
     · placed before the .sanctioning authority. In the event, the D
       order of sanction doe·s not indicate application of mind
       as (sic to) ttre materials placed before the said authority
       before the order of sanction was passed, the same may
       be produced before the court to show that such materials
       had in fact been produced."                                   E
      7. Be it noted that in the said cas3e, the decision in
Prakash Singh Badal v. State of Punjab was distinguished
and in that context, it has been opined:-
     "Parkash Singh .Badal (supra), therefore, is not an F
     authority for the proposition that even when an order of
     sanction· is held to be wholly invalid inter alia on the
     premise that the order is a nullity having been suffering
     from the vice of total non-application of mind. We,
     therefore, are of the opinion that the said decision cannot G
     be said to have any application in the instant case."
      8. In the case at hand, we are only concerned with validity
of grant of sanction and nothing else. The only ground of attack
is that there has been no application of mind. The High Court,
' (2001) 1 sec 1                                                    H
992          SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [2015] 14S.C.R.


A     as is demonstrable, has opined that while granting sanction a
      detailed reasoned judgment is not required to be passed. It
      has also come to hold that the authority had applied its mind.
      Nothing has been brought on record to substantiate that the
      sanction was granted in an absolutely mechanical manner.
B           9.ln view of the aforesaid premised reasons, we are of
      the considered view that the sanction granted in this case does
      not suffer from any infirmity so as to declare it as illegal.
      Therefore, we are not inclined to interfere with the order passed
C .by the High Court.
           10. Resultantly, the appeal, being devoid of merit,
      stands dismissed.


      Bibhuti Bhushan Bose                             Appeal dismissed.