S. 197 CrPC | Once Denied, Sanction to Prosecute Public Servant Cannot Be Granted Again On Same Material : Supreme Court

The Supreme Court recently held that once a sanction to prosecute a public servant has been denied, it cannot be granted again unless new material is presented to the competent authority justifying the subsequent sanction.“The subsequent sanction was given based on the same material, therefore, in the absence of any other contra material which weighed in the mind of the sanctioning authority, the same cannot be sustained in the eye of law”, the Court said. The bench comprising Justice MM Sundresh and Justice Aravind Kumar heard a criminal appeal filed by the State of Telangana against the High Court's decision quashing criminal proceedings against the respondent (C. Shobha Rani), who had been charged under multiple sections of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), including Sections 420 (cheating), 467 (forgery of valuable security), 468 (forgery for purpose of cheating), 471 (using as genuine a forged document), 120B (criminal conspiracy), and Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(c) and (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The appellant-state argued that the High Court had quashed the proceedings without examining the merits of the case, solely on the grounds that the subsequent grant of sanction to prosecute the respondent was vitiated. This was because it was based on the same material that had been presented when the earlier sanction was denied. The High Court held that a mere change of opinion, by itself, could not justify the grant of subsequent sanction. The primary issue before the Supreme Court was whether the High Court erred in quashing the charges under the IPC and Prevention of Corruption Act, and if the sanction granted subsequently was valid despite being based on the same material that had earlier been rejected. The Court agreed with the High Court's opinion on the refusal to grant subsequent sanction and said that a mere change of opinion was insufficient to sustain the sanction, as there was no new evidence or grounds presented that would justify reversing the decision of grant of previous sanction. However, the Court found force in the appellant's contention that the High Court's failed to delve into the merits of the case. “However, we find force in the other submission made by learned senior counsel for the appellant that the High Court did not even go into the charges pertaining to Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120B of the IPC. We are also in agreement with the submission made by learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant that there is no need for grant of sanction under Section 197 of IPC.” “In such view of the matter, we are inclined to set aside the impugned judgment insofar as quashment of charges against the respondents under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120B IPC alone is concerned.”, the court held. The Court allowed the appeal in part and the matters were remitted to the High Court for fresh consideration with respect to the applicability of Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, and Section 120B of IPC requested to be decided preferably within four months.Appearance: For Petitioner(s) Mr. K M Nataraj, A.S.G. Mrs. Archana Pathak Dave, A.S.G. Mr. Mukesh Kumar Maroria, AOR Mrs. Chitrangda Rastaravara, Adv. Mr. Anmol Chandan, Adv. Mr. Siddharth Dharmadhikari, Adv. Mr. Santosh Kumar, Adv. Mr. Jitender Kumar Tripathi, Adv. Mr. Alabhya Dhamija, Adv. Ms. Sweksha, Adv. Mr. Sharath Nambiar, Adv. For Respondent(s) Mr. Nachiketa Joshi, Sr. Adv. Mr. Shantanu Krishna, AOR Ms. Sucheta Joshi, Adv. Ms. Sagrika Arya, Adv. Ms. Karishma Rajput, Adv. Mr. Rajesh Kumar Gautam, AOR Mr. Anant Gautam, Adv. Ms. Likivi Jakhalu, Adv. Mr. Kushagra Nilesh Sahay, Adv. Case Title: THE STATE OF TELANGANA VERSUS C. SHOBHA RANICitation : 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 955Click here to read/download the order

S. 197 CrPC | Once Denied, Sanction to Prosecute Public Servant Cannot Be Granted Again On Same Material : Supreme Court

Yash Mittal

Tags