LexBALBHADRA PARASHAR versus STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2015] 14 S.C.R. 987 BALBHADRAPARASHAR v. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH (Criminal Appeal No. 2431 of 2014) DECEMBER 10, 2015 [ANIL R. DAVE AND DIPAK MISRA, J.] A B Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - s.13(1)(e) - Sanction to prosecute the accused - Grant of sanction - Validity- Held: While granting sanction, a detailed reasoned C judgment is not required to be passed - On facts, nothing brought on record to substantiate that the sanction was granted in an absolutely mechanicaJ manner- The authority concerned had applied its' mind - Sanction granted in the case did not suffer from any infirmity so as to declare it as D illegal. Makhanlal Vithaldas Chauhan v. State of Gujarat (1997) 7 sec 622 : 1997 (3) Suppl. SCR 705; State of Karnataka v. Ameerjan (2007) 11 SCC 273 : 2007 (9) SCR 1105; and Prakash Singh Badal v. State of Punjab (2007) 1 SCC 1 : 2006 (10) Suppl. SCR 197- referred to. Case Law Reference E 1997 (3) Suppl. SCR 705 referred to.. Para 5 F 2007 (9) SCR 1105 referred to. Para 6 2006 (10) Suppl. SCR 197 referred to. Para 7 CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 2431 of 2014. G From the Judgment and Order dated 25.07 .2014 of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh Bench at Gwalior in Miscellaneous Criminal Case No. 4277 of 2014. 987 H 988 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2015] 14S.C.R. A Prashant Shukla, Pashupathi Nath Razdan, Advs., for the Appellant. . The Judgment of the Court was delivered by DIPAK MISRA, J. 1. In this appeal, by special leave, the B appellant has called in question the legal propriety of the order dated 25.07 .2014 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur, Gwalior Bench in M.Cr.C. No. 4277 of 2014 whereby the High Court has declined to interfere in the petition preferred under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, "the CrPC") wherein the grant of C sanction was called in question. 2. The facts, in a nutshell, are that the appellant was a Manager of the Primary Agriculture Credit Co-operative Society, Village Pipraua, District Gwalior. On the basis of allegations made, a case under Section 13(1)(e) of the D Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short, 'the 1988 Act') was registered against him. After investigation it was found that he had secured assets and property of Rs. 1,05,44,604/- and, accordingly, sanction was sought to launch prosecution against him, and it was granted. As the factual matrix would E reveal, the trial court proceeded and charges were framed against him. The order offraming the charge was assailed in a Writ Petition which stood dismissed. 3. In the petition under Section 482 CrPC it was F contended before the High Court that the sanction to prosecute the accused had not been granted in accordance with law as there had been no application of mind. The High Court, after hearing the learned counsel forthe parties, has held as under:- "We have perused the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme G Court and facts and evidence on record of the case. In our opinion, the sanctioning authority has considered all the facts of the case. There is prima facie evidence against the petitioner in regard to acquiring property and assets in excess to his known source of income. In H BALBHADRA PARAS HAR v. STATE OF MADHYA 989 PRADESH [DIPAK MISRA, J.] granting sanction to prosecute under the Prevention of A Corruption Act, 1988 it is not necessary for the authority to pass a detailed reasoned judgment and order. The authority has to apply its mind. Even otherwise, there is sufficient evidence prime facie to prosecute the petitioner." B 4. In this appeal on a perusal of the grounds, we find that there are numerous reference to M.P. Vishesh Nyayalaya Adiniya, 2011. The constitutionality of the said Act was not questioned before the High Court as it could not have been questioned under Section 482 Cr.P.C. However, we may note C that almost similar Acts, namely, the Orissa Special Courts Act, 2006 and the Bihar Special Courts Act, 2009, have been treated to be valid by this Court in Civil Appeal Nos. 6448-6452 of 2011 titled Yogendra Kumar Jaiswal Etc. v. State of Bihar &Ors. D 5. It is contended that the grant of sanction is not an empty formality and there has to be application of mind in support of the said sanction. We have been commimded to Mansukh/al Vithaldas Chauhan v. State of Gujarat wherein a two-Judge E Bench while dealing
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.