Judgment:
(Prayer: This petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, praying to quash the impugned order dated 24.01.2014 vide Annexure-A, passed by the respondent-authority.)
1. The petitioner being a Sub Registrar was posted and was working in the office of the Sub Registrar, Tavarekere, Bangalore South Taluk since, May 2012. Lokayukta Police, on 21.12.2012, registered a case in Crime No.3/2013 against the Sub-Registrar, Tavarekere and others, for the offences punishable under Ss.7, 8, 13(l)(d) read with S.13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short 'the Act0- On 22.02.2013, Lokayukta Police conducted a raid upon the office of the petitioner and having searched the petitioner in person and the premises, found unaccounted money of ?60,000/- in all, which was seized under a panchanama. The petitioner was arrested and the bail application filed having been allowed by the District and Sessions Judge, Ramanagara, was released on bail, on fulfilling the conditions imposed in the bail order. Investigation Officer having submitted the investigation report and the Additional Director General of Police, Karnataka Lokayukta having sought the sanction for prosecution of the petitioner and the respondent having accorded sanction under S.13(l)(c) of the Act on 24.01.2014 vide Annexure-A, for prosecution of the petitioner for the offences punishable under Ss.7, 8, 13(l)(d) r/w 5.13(2) of the Act, this writ petition was filed to quash the said order.
2. Sri D. Pavanesh, learned advocate, contended that: the registration of the case without there being a complaint against the petitioner being illegal and mere possession of some money in the hands of private persons would not substantiate the offence of demand and acceptance of illegal gratification by the petitioner and the allegations made in the FIR or seizure panchanama not disclosing any offences under S.13(l) (d) of the Act, the impugned order also not disclosing the examination of any documents to attract the alleged offences, the according of permission by the respondent, to prosecute the petitioner, being one without application of mind, is liable to be quashed. He submitted that the respondent has absolutely not applied his mind while granting sanction to prosecute the petitioner and hence, interference with the order as at Annexure-A is called for.
3. Smt. Rafeeunisa, learned HCGP, on the other hand, contended that the sanction order as at Annexure-A has been issued after complying with the procedure required by law and the same animates application of mind to all the materials. She submitted that after the investigation, it has been found that the petitioner has committed the offence and is liable to be prosecuted for the offences in question and even otherwise, the validity of the sanction order can be raised in the trial. Reliance was placed on the decision in STATE OF M.P. /s. DR.KRISHNA CHANDRA SAKSENA, (1996) 11 SCC 439. She submitted that the sanction for prosecution under the Act is clearly distinguishable from a sanction under S.197 of the Criminal Procedure Code. A reference was made to the decision in LALU PRASAD @ LALU PRASAD YADAV VS. STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH CBI, (2007) 1 SCC 49.
4. In PAUL VARGHESE Vs. STATE OF KERALA AND ANOTHER, (2007) 14 SCC 783, in the matter of grant of sanction under S.19 of the Act and S.197 Cr.P.C., Apex Court has heid as follows:
"10. It may be noted that Section 197 of the Code and Section 19 of he Act operate in conceptually different fields. In cases covered under the Act, in respect of public servants the sanction is of automatic nature and thus factual aspects are of little or no consequence. Conversely, in a case relatable to Section 197 of the Code, the substratum and basic features of the case have to be considered to find out whether the alleged act has any nexus to the discharge ol duties. Position is not so in case of Section 19 of the Act."
(emphasis supplied)
5. Grant of sanction by competent authority is a sine qua non for taking cognizance of the offences. A perusal of the order, as at Annexure-A, ex facie shows consideration of all the material placed before the sanctioning authority and decision having been arrived at. Be that as it may.
6. The most relevant issue involved in this petition is, at what stage, the validity of the sanction order can be raised?
7. In DINESH KUMAR Vs. CHAIRMAN, AIRPORT AUTHORITY OF INDIA AND ANOTHER, (2012) 1 SCC 532, the appellant was being prosecuted for the offences punishable under S.13T2) r/w Ss.l3(l) (d) and 13(1) of the Act. Sanctioning authority granted sanction to prosecute the appellant for the said offences. After the sanction order was challenged by the appellant in the High Court, charge sheet was filed by the CBI. Summons having been issued during the pendency of the case in the High Court, wherein the sanction order had been challenged, the Court of the Special Judge took cognizance against the appellant and that the writ petition against the sanction order having been dismissed and intra-court appeal also having been dismissed with an observation that it was open to the appellant to question the validity of the sanction order during the trial on all possible grounds and the CBI could also justify the order of granting the sanction before the Trial Judge, when the Apex Court was approached for relief, by contending that the legality and validity of the sanction order having been challenged even before the charge sheet was filed and the Division Bench of the High Court was not justified in relegating the appellant to agitate the question of validity of the sanction order in the course of the trial and that the High Court ought to have gone into the merits of the challenge to sanction order, which suffered from non-application of mind and the respondent having opposed the appeal in the Apex Court on tiie ground that in a case where validity of the sanction order was sought to be challenged on the ground of non- application of mind, such challenge can only be made in the course of trial, the Apex Court by taking into consideration the ratio of the decision in the case of PARKASH SINGH BADAL Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS, (2007) 1 SCC 1, with regard to the distinction between the absence of sanction and invalidity of the sanction, in a case where a sanction order exists, but its legality and validity is put in question, has held as follows:
"10. In our view, invalidity of sanction where sanction order exits, can be raised on diverse grounds like non availability of material before the sanctioning authority or bias of the sanctioning authority or the order of sanction having been passed by an authority not authorised or competent to grant such sanction. The above grounds are only illustrative and not exhaustive. All such grounds of invalidity or illegality of sanction would fall in the same category like the ground of invalidity of sanction on account of non-application of mind- a category carved out by this Court in Parkash Singh Badal, the chaliengc to which can always be raised in the course of trial."
(emphasis supplied)
8. In view of ratio of the decision in DINESH KUMAR (supra), it has to be held that the legality and validity of Annexure-A can be raised in the course of trial, since it has been further held in the aforesaid decision, by the Apex Court as follows:
"13. In our view, having regard to the facts of the present case, now since cognizance has already been taken against the appellant by the trial Judge, the High Court cannot be said to have erred in leaving the question of validity of sanction open for consideration by the trial court and giving liberty to the appellant to raise the issue concerning validity of sanction order in the course of trial. Such course is in accord with the decision of this Court in Parkash Singh Badai and no! unjustified
9. In view of the above, I do not find justification, at this stage, to entertain this writ petition. However, it is made clear that it is open to the petitioner to question the illegality and invalidity of Annexure-A, if any, during the trial, on all possible grounds and the prosecution could also justify the order of granting sanction before the learned Trial Judge.
Writ petition is rejected accordingly.