Four Months Time Limit U/Sec 19 PC Act To Decide A 'Sanction Request' Mandatory ; But Criminal Proceedings Cannot Be Quashed For Delay : Supreme Court

The Supreme Court held that, the period of three months (extendable by one more month for legal consultation) under Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act for the Appointing Authority to decide upon a request for sanction is mandatory.However, the consequence of non-compliance with this mandatory requirement shall not be quashing of the criminal proceeding for that very reason, the bench of Justices BR Gavai and PS Narasimha clarified.The court added that upon expiry of the three months and the additional one-month period, the aggrieved party, be it the complainant, accused or victim, would be entitled to approach the concerned writ court and seek appropriate remedies, including directions for action on the request for sanction and for the corrective measure on accountability that the sanctioning authority bears.In this case, the Madras High Court allowed a criminal revision petition filed by the State against an order of the Trial Court, discharging the accused on the ground that the order of sanction under Section 19 of the PC Act, is vitiated due to non-application of mind by the sanctioning authority.Before the Apex Court, the following issues were raised in appeal: (1) Whether the order of sanction is illegal due to non-application of mind by the DoPT for acting as per dictation of CVC (2) whether the criminal proceedings could be quashed for the delay of about two years in the issuance of the sanction order. Answering the first issue, the bench observed that there is no illegality in the action of the appointing authority, the DoPT, if it calls for, refers, and considers the opinion of the Central Vigilance Commission before it takes its final decision on the request for sanction for prosecuting a public servant. The bench, in this regard, observed:"The five legislations being the Cr.P.C, DSPE Act, PC Act, CVC Act, and Lokpal Act, must be read together to enable the authorities to sub-serve the common purpose and objectives underlying these legislations. The Central Vigilance Commission, constituted under the CVC Act is specifically entrusted with the duty and function of providing expert advice on the subject. It may be necessary for the appointing authority to call for and seek the opinion of the CVC before it takes any decision on the request for sanction for prosecution. The statutory scheme under which the appointing authority could call for, seek and consider the advice of the CVC can neither be termed as acting under dictation nor a factor which could be referred to as an irrelevant consideration. The opinion of the CVC is only advisory. It is nevertheless a valuable input in the decision-making process of the appointing authority. The final decision of the appointing authority must be of its own by application of independent mind."Regarding the second issue, the bench noticed that the proviso to Section 19 mandates that the competent authority shall endeavour to convey the decision on the proposal for sanction within a period of three months can only be read and understood as a compelling statutory obligation."The intention of the Parliament is evident from a combined reading of the first proviso to Section 19, which uses the expression 'endeavour' with the subsequent provisions. The third proviso mandates that the extended period can be granted only for one month after reasons are recorded in writing. There is no further extension. The fourth proviso, which empowers the Central Government to prescribe necessary guidelines for ensuring the mandate, may also be noted in this regard. It can thus be concluded that the Parliament intended that the process of grant of sanction must be completed within four months, which includes the extended period of one month."The bench then examined the consequence of non-compliance with the mandatory period and observed thus:"In conclusion, we hold that upon expiry of the three months and the additional one-month period, the aggrieved party, be it the complainant, accused or victim, would be entitled to approach the concerned writ court. They are entitled to seek appropriate remedies, including directions for action on the request for sanction and for the corrective measure on accountability that the sanctioning authority bears. This is especially crucial if the nongrant of sanction is withheld without reason, resulting in the stifling of a genuine case of corruption. Simultaneously, the CVC shall enquire into the matter in the exercise of its powers under Section 8(1)(e) and (f) and take such corrective action as it is empowered under the CVC Act."Case detailsVijay Rajmohan vs State | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 832 | SLP(Crl) 1568 OF 2022 | 11 October 2022 | Justices BR Gavai and PS Narasimha Counsel: Sr. Adv Mahesh Jethmalani, AOR P.V. Yogeswaran for appellant, ASG S.V. Raju for respondent- DOPTHeadnotesPrevention of Corruption Act, 1988 ; Section 19 - The period of three months, extended by one more month for legal consultation, is mandatory. The...

Four Months Time Limit U/Sec 19 PC Act To Decide A 'Sanction Request' Mandatory ; But Criminal Proceedings Cannot Be Quashed For Delay : Supreme Court

Ashok KM

Tags