Competent Authority Required To Look At 'Entire Material' Placed On Record While Declining To Grant Sanction To Prosecute: Karnataka High Court

The Karnataka High Court has held that an investigating agency cannot be construed as a person aggrieved of an order passed by the State refusing to grant sanction to prosecute, a government servant in this case.Justice M Nagaprasanna further held that no fault was found with the exercise of discretion of the competent authority in looking into the "whole or entire material", while refusing to accord sanction. It observed,"In my considered view, no fault can be found with the exercise of discretion of the competent authority in looking into the whole or entire material, while refusing to accord sanction, failing which, the act of the competent authority would have fallen foul of the law laid down by the Apex Court in the afore-extracted judgments." Case Background: The Karnataka Lokayukta Police had approached the court calling in question two orders passed by the state government declining to accord sanction to prosecute the 3rd respondent (G. Krishnamurthy, Police Inspector). The 3rd Respondent had been booked for alleged commission of offences under Section 13(1)(e) read with 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, by possessing assets disproportionate to his known source of income. However, the requests sent to the competent authority to accord sanction to prosecute were declined twice, after perusing all documents in support of the claim. Accordingly, the Lokayukta Police approached the High Court. It was contended that the petitioner has locus to challenge the orders of the State refusing to accord sanction to prosecute as the investigation is conducted by the petitioner and the respondent cannot escape the clutches of penal law on declining sanction to be accorded. Moreover, the competent authority, while declining to accord sanction, has looked into the entire material of investigation, which is impermissible in law. The State on the other hand argued that it is the discretion of the competent authority either to accord sanction or refuse it and the petitioner cannot be construed to be an aggrieved person in the refusal to accord sanction to prosecute the 3rd respondent. Court Findings: The bench referred to Section 19 of the PC Act and relied heavily on the Supreme Court Judgement in the case of CBI v. Ashok Kumar Aggarwal and said, "What would unmistakably emerge is that, the competent authority to accord sanction for prosecution should satisfy the Court that at the time of grant of sanction, adequate material was made available by the authority, who sought sanction." It was of the opinion that the order of sanction should make it evident that the authority was aware of all the relevant material and had applied its mind to all such relevant material.It added, "The Apex Court further holds that Courts should bear in mind that sanction lifts the bar of prosecution and it is not an acrimonious exercise but a solemn and sacrosanct act, which affords protection to the government servant against frivolous prosecution and a weapon to discourage vexatious prosecution." The court then went through the entire process followed between the police and authorities while refusing sanction for prosecution and remarked that the State performing the act of considering grant of sanction or otherwise, is required to look at the entire material or the whole material. "The usage of the words 'whole' or 'entire' material by the Apex Court in the case of Ashok Kumar Aggarwal (supra), clearly mandates that the competent authority is required to look into everything placed before it and other material, if available, at the time of considering the request for grant of sanction, as it is trite that it is not an acrimonious exercise but a solemn or sacrosanct act, which affords protection to the Government servant or releases him to face prosecution." The court also relied on the official memorandum issued by the government in 2001, wherein instruction of the process to be followed while granting sanction for prosecution of government servants is enumerated. Accordingly it held, "Therefore, a coalesce of the facts obtaining in the case at hand, Section 19 of the Act, judgments of the Apex Court interpreting Section 19 of the Act and delineating the manner in which the competent authority has to accord or refuse sanction and the Official Memorandum or the circulars issued by the Government of India and the State, would result in the subject point also being held against the petitioner." The court junked the contention of the petitioner that he was aggrieved by the refusal of sanction and can maintain the writ petition. Case Title: Karnataka Lokayukta Police v. State Rep. By SecretaryCase No: Writ Petition No.48249 of 2018 Date Of Order: 13th Day of December, 2021 Appearance: Advocate Prasad B.S, for Petitioner; Advocate Renukaradhya R.D., for R1 And R2; Advocate T.P.Vivekananda, for R3Click Here To Read/Download Order

Competent Authority Required To Look At 'Entire Material' Placed On Record While Declining To Grant Sanction To Prosecute: Karnataka High Court

Mustafa Plumber

Tags