Mere Discrepancy In Date Of Sanction Order Without Material Showing Substantive Illegality Cannot Quash Charge-Sheet: J&K&L High Court

The Court dismissed a petition seeking dismissal of a charge-sheet under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, holding that the validity of the sanction can be examined by the trial court at the appropriate stage, and the accused is not precluded from questioning the sanction during trial by cross-examining the sanctioning authority.

The Court was hearing a petition challenging an order passed by the trial court dismissing an application filed by the petitioner, who was an accused in FIR registered with the Anti-Corruption Bureau, Srinagar, for offences punishable under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

The petition was heard by Justice Sanjay Parihar, who observed,

“The existence of a discrepancy in the dates, without anything further to demonstrate that the sanction was not validly accorded, cannot automatically obliterate the prosecution or render the charge-sheet non est in the eyes of law.”

Background

The petitioner, posted as an Accounts Assistant in the Directorate of Accounts and Treasuries, Kashmir, was alleged to have demanded and accepted illegal gratification from the complainant.

The prosecution case was that a complaint was lodged by employees of Children's Hospital, Bemina, alleging that the petitioner had demanded illegal gratification for settling an issue pertaining to the payment of an allowance, with the demand initially being Rs. 3,000 and subsequently raised. A charge-sheet was presented before the trial court on 29.05.2024.

The petitioner moved an application before the trial court seeking dismissal of the charge-sheet on the ground that the sanction for prosecution, purportedly accorded vide Government Order dated 29.04.2024, bore the date 24.09.2024 against the signatures of the sanctioning authority.

The petitioner contended that since the charge-sheet was presented on 29.05.2024, the sanction bearing a subsequent date was invalid. The trial court dismissed the application, observing that the date discrepancy could reasonably be attributed to an inadvertent or clerical error and did not constitute a sufficient ground for declaring the sanction invalid.

Assailing the trial court's order, the petitioner contended that the trial court failed to appreciate the mandatory character of Section 19 of the Act, which requires a valid sanction as a statutory safeguard.

It was urged that the trial court could not have presumed, in the absence of supporting material, that the discrepancy in dates was attributable to a clerical error. During arguments, the counsel for the petitioner fairly conceded that the sanction order was not being assailed on the ground of non-application of mind by the sanctioning authority.

Court's Observation

The Court observed that there could be no quarrel with the proposition that a valid sanction for prosecution constitutes an important statutory safeguard intended to protect public servants against frivolous or unwarranted prosecution.

The Court noted that an accused is entitled to question the legality and validity of the sanction, including on the ground that it was accorded by an incompetent authority or in disregard of the requirements of law. However, the Court held that the question was not merely whether such an objection is legally permissible, but whether the nature of the objection raised warranted dismissal of the charge-sheet at the threshold stage.

The Court held,

“The discrepancy, though requiring consideration, cannot by itself be regarded as conclusive proof of the invalidity of the sanction.”

The Court noted that the petitioner had not placed any independent material on record to establish that the sanction was, in fact, accorded subsequent to the presentation of the charge-sheet or that the order was otherwise issued in violation of the mandatory requirements of Section 19 of the Act.

The Court further observed that while the trial court could not have substituted its own assumption for a factual determination of the discrepancy, this observation did not advance the petitioner's case to the extent of entitling him to dismissal of the charge-sheet.

The Court held,

“The existence of a discrepancy in the dates, without anything further to demonstrate that the sanction was not validly accorded, cannot automatically obliterate the prosecution or render the charge-sheet non est in the eyes of law.”

The Court clarified that the accused is not precluded from questioning the sanction during the proceedings before the trial court or, where the issue so requires, during trial by cross-examining the sanctioning authority or other relevant witnesses. The Court held,

“The accused is not precluded from questioning the sanction during the proceedings before the learned trial court or, where the issue so requires, during trial by cross-examining the sanctioning authority or other relevant witnesses to establish that the sanction was not accorded in accordance with law.”

Regarding the reliance on Mohd. Iqbal Ahmad v. State of Andhra Pradesh (1979), the Court observed that while the judgment reiterates the necessity of establishing a valid sanction, it does not support the proposition that a discrepancy of the nature alleged in the present case must, without further examination, necessarily entail dismissal of the charge-sheet.

Finding no ground warranting interference, the Court dismissed the petition.