Prosecution Sanction Under Section 197 Cr.P.C Explained By Justice V Ram Kumar [Part-5]

T. Can the Government empower a responsible and senior officer to accord sanction on behalf of the Government either under the Cr.P.C or under the P.C Act, 1988 ? 21. Yes. Where it is the Government which has to accord prosecution sanction, the Government can empower a responsible and senior officer to accord such prosecution sanction. As per an amendment to the Rules of Business of the Government of Kerala, the Secretary (Vigilance) was authorised to grant prosecution sanction with effect from 23-04-1994 . Hence, sanction accorded by the said authority prior to the said date was held to be without the jurisdiction. Therefore, the appellant's conviction was not sustained and he was consequently acquitted of the charges. (Vide K. Devassia v. State of Kerala (2006) 10 SCC 447) – B. N. Agrawal. A.K. Mathur – JJ; P.A. Mohandas v. State of Kerala (2003) 9 SCC 504 - G. B. Pattanaik, Brijesh Kumar - JJ, wherein proceedings were quashed for want of jurisdiction of Secretary (Vigilance) to accord prosecution sanction prior to 23-04-1994, was followed. NOTES BY THE AUTHOR: It eludes one's comprehension as to how the public servant in K. Devassia's case could be acquitted for want of prosecution sanction by the competent authority. The proper order should have been one of discharge which will not prevent a fresh trial on a valid sanction. (Vide Nanjappa v. State of Karnataka AIR 2015 SC 3060 - T. S. Thakur, Amitava Roy - JJ.) In Krishna Iyer v. State of Kerala - 2005 (1) KLT 391 (D.B) - J. B. Koshy, J. M. James - JJ, the argument of the accused that the Secretary, Vigilance Department was not competent to grant sanction to prosecute an officer working under another Department, was repelled by a Division Bench of the Kerala High Court . It was held that as per the Rules Business of the Government of Kerala issued under Article 166 of the Constitution of India, the sanction order issued by the Secretary, Vigilance Department on behalf of the Government, was proper and that even if there was any irregularity, the conviction cannot be set aside in view of Section 465 Cr.P.C. Additional Secretary, Department of Law and Legislative Affairs of the State of Chhattisgarh authorised by the Government as the Appropriate Authority to grant sanction on behalf of the State Government, granted sanction in the name of the Governor of the State. This was upheld by the Chattisgarh High Court (Vide Pappu Singh Rajput v. State of Chhattisgarh 2016 KHC 2441 = 2016 Cri.L.J 612 – (Chhattisgarh H.C.) - Sanjay K. Agarwal - J.) U. The power to accord prosecution sanction by an “authority superior” to the authority competent to grant prosecution sanction 22. Prosecution Sanction must be given by an authority competent to remove the accused from the office. It is enough that the authority giving sanction is of the same or higher rank or grade of the Authority who appointed the public servant. (Vide Mahesh Prasad v. State of U.P AIR 1955 SC 70 = 1955 Cr.L.J. 249 - 3 Judges - B. K. Mukherjea, Vivian Bose, B. Jagannadhadas - JJ). See also Sampuran Singh v. State of Punjab (1982) 3 SCC 200 = AIR 1982 SC 1407 – 3 Judges - A. P. Sen, E. S. Venkataramiah, R. B. Misra - JJ.) The Special Officer who was competent to grant sanction was appointed by the Government. Hence prosecution sanction granted by the authority superior to the competent authority is valid. (Vide State of T.N v. T. Thulasingam 1994 Supp. (2) SCC 405 = AIR 1995 SC 1314 – Yogeshwar Dayal, Kuldip Singh – JJ.) V. The Sanctioning authority whether can blindly and mechanically sign a ready-made sanction order prepared by the Police 23. No. The sanctioning authority should not blindly or mechanically sign a readymade sanction order prepared and sent to him by the Investigating Police Officer. The sanctioning authority should go through the relevant investigation papers placed before him and it is only after applying his mind to the facts constituting the offence and arriving at the requisite satisfaction that he can affix his signature on the readymade sanction order. If the application of mind and subjective satisfaction is discernible from the sanction order, then merely because he has put his signature on a readymade sanction order cannot render the order of sanction invalid. (Vide para 9 of Indu Bhusan Chatterjee v. State of W.B. – AIR 1958 SC 148 – 3 Judges - B. P. Sinha, S. J. Imam, J. L. Kapur - JJ.) But the sanction was held valid in a case where the sanctioning authority had before it only the FIR and a letter of Superintendent of Police containing all the facts and circumstances of the case and the order of the sanctioning authority showing that sanction was given after considering all the facts disclosed in the aforesaid two documents. (Vide Ram Sagar Pandit v. State of Bihar (1964) 2 Cri.L.J 65 (SC) – 4 Judges -...

Prosecution Sanction Under Section 197 Cr.P.C Explained By Justice V Ram Kumar [Part-5]

Justice V Ramkumar

Tags