C.S. KRISHNAMURTHY versus STATE OF KARNATAKA

Citation: [2005] 2 S.C.R. 1163 · Decided: 29-03-2005 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: P. VENKATARAMA REDDI · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

C.S. KRISHNAMURTHY 
A 
v. 
STATE OF KARNATAKA 
MARCH 29, 2005 
[P. VENKATARAMA REDDI AND A.K. MATHUR, JJ.] 
B 
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947-Section 6(1) and Sectio~ 5(2) read 
with Section 5(1)(e)-Accumulation of assets disproportionate to income by 
public servant-Sanction Order by the Authority for prosecution under Section C 
5(2) read with 5(1)(e)-Validity of-Held: Facts disclosed in the sanction 
order are eloquent for constituting prima facie offence under the Section and 
on reading it with evidence of sanctioning authority, it is clear that the sanction 
was accorded properly with due application of mind and hence, valid-Order 
of High Court that sanction accorded was valid calls for no interference-
Constitution of India, 1950-Article 136. 
D 
It is alleged that a technical supervisor of the Telephone Department 
accumulated assets disproportionate to his known source of income for 
certain period. CBI carried out the investigation and filed charge sheet 
against the employee for offence under Section 5(2) read with Section 
S(l)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947. Deputy General E 
Manager of the Department accorded sanction under section 6(1) of the 
Act for prosecution of the accused. Special Judge acquitted the accused 
on the ground that the sanction was invalid. Single Judge of High Court 
set aside the order holding that the sanction accorded by the prosecution 
was valid and remitted the matter to the Special Judge. Hence the present F 
appeal. 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
HELD : 1.1. Sanction is necessary for every prosecution of public 
servant; this safeguard is against the frivolous prosecution against public G 
servant from harassment. But, the sanction should not be taken as a shield 
to protect corrupt and dishonest public servant. Sanction order should 
speak for itself and in case the facts do not so appear, it should be proved 
by leading evidence that all the particulars were placed before the 
sanctioning authority for due application of mind. In case the sanction 
1163 
H 
1164 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2005] 2 S.C.R. 
A speaks for itself then the satisfaction of the sanctioning authority is 
apparent by reading the order. When the sanction itself is very expressive, 
then the argument that particular material was not properly placed before 
the sanctioning authority for according sanction and sanctioning authority 
has not applied its mind becomes unsustainable. When sanction order itself 
is eloquent enough, then in that case only formal evidence .has to be 
B produced by the sanctioning authority or by any other evidence that the 
sanction was accorded by a competent person with due application of 
mind. [11~8-G; 1170-E-F; 1169-C-D) 
~.2. In the insta~t case, the sanction order itself discloses the facts 
that the incumbent is being prosecuted under the provisions of the 
C Prevention of Corruption Act for accumulating moveable and immovable 
assets disproportionate to his known source of income and he has failed 
to give satisfactory account for the same. The sanction order speaks for 
itself that the incumbent has to account for the assets disproportionate to 
his known source of income. More so, Deputy General Manager of the 
D Department has collie in the witness box as prosecution witness and has 
proved the sanction order, that he was competent authority to ac·cord 
sanction and he accorded the sanction for prosecution of accused for the 
alleged offence. He deposed that after going through the report of the 
Superintendent of Police, CBI and after discussing the matter with his legal 
department, he accorded sanction which is enough to show that there is 
E due application of mind. The facts contained in the sanction order read 
with evidence of sanctioning authority makes it clear that sanction was 
properly accorded and is valid. Facts mentioned in sanction order are 
eloquent for constitutingprimafacie offence under Section 5(2) read with 
Section 5(1)(e) of the Act. Therefore, the view taken by Single Judge of 
F the High Court is justified and calls for no interfe:-ence. 
[1171-G-H; 1170-F-G; 1172-A] 
Mansukhlal Vithaldas Chauhan v. State of Gujarat, (1997] 7 SCC 622, 
distinguished. 
Jndu Bhusan Chatterjee v. State of West Bengal, [1958] SCR 999; R.S. 
G Pandit v. State of Bihar, {1963] Supp. 2 SCR 652; Balaram Swain v. State 
of Orissa, [1991) Supp. 1 SCC 510 and State of T.N. v. MM Rajendran, 
[1998] 9 sec 268, referred to. 
2. It cannot be said tha

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.