DINESH KUMAR versus CHAIRMAN, AIRPORT AUTHORITY OF INDIA AND ANR.

Citation: [2011] 13 S.C.R. 260 · Decided: 22-11-2011 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: RAJENDRA MAL LODHA · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 2 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
[2011) 13 \ADDL.) S.C.R. 260 
DINESH KUMAR 
v. 
CHAIRMAN, AIRPORT AUTHORITY OF INDIA AND ANR. 
(Criminal Appeal Nos. 2170-2171 of 2011) 
NOVEMBER 22, 2011 
[R.M. LODHA AND H.L. GOKHALE, JJ.] 
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988: 
c 
s.19 -
Sanction for prosecution -
Significance and 
importance of - Held: The sanction is not an empty formality 
but a sacrosanct act which affords protection to government 
servants against frivolous prosecutions - Validity of sanction 
order depends upon the material placed before the 
0 sanctioning authority - Where sanction order exists but its 
validity and legality is put in question, such issue has to be 
raised in the course of trial - lri the instant case, cognizance 
was already taken against the appellants by the trial court -
High Court while considering challenge to the sanction order, 
therefore, rightly held that it was open to the appe//ant to 
E question the validity of the sanction order during trial on all 
possible grounds. 
The appellant was prosecuted for the offences 
punishable under Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) 
F and 13(1)(a) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The 
sanctioning authority granted sanction to prosecute the 
appellant for these offences. After the sanction order was 
challenged by the appellant in the High Court, the charge-
sheet was filed by the CBI-respondent no.2 against the 
G appellant in the Court of Special Judge. The summons 
were issued to the appellant. During the pendency of the 
matter before the High Court, wherein the sanction order 
was challenged by the appellant, the Court of Special 
Judge took cognizance against the appellant. The 
H 
260 
DINESH KUMAR v. CHAIRMAN, AIRPORT AUTHORITY 261 
OF INDIA AND ANR. 
appellant filed a writ petition before the High Court. The 
A 
Single Judge of the High Court dismissed the writ 
petition. The Division Bench of the High Court dismissed 
the intra-court appeal observing that it was open to the 
appellant to question the validity of the sanction order 
during trial on all possible grounds and the CBI could 
B 
also justify the order of granting sanction before the Trial 
Judge. The instants appeal were filed challenging the 
order of the High Court. 
Dismissing the appeals, the Court 
HELD: 1. This Court has in *Mansukhlal Vitha/das 
Chauhan considered the significance and importance of 
sanction under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. It 
was observed therein that the sanction is not intended 
c 
to be, nor is an empty formality but a solemn and 
D 
sacrosanct act which affords protection to government 
servants against frivolous prosecutions and it is a 
weapon to ensure discouragement of frivolous and 
vexatious prosecution and is a safeguard for the innocent 
but not a shield for the guilty. This Court highlighted that 
E 
validity of a sanction order would depend upon the 
material placed before the sanctioning authority and the 
consideration of the material implies application of mind. 
While drawing a distinction between the absence of 
sanction and invalidity of the sanction, this Court in 
F 
••Parkash Singh Badal expressed in no uncertain terms 
that the absence of sanction could be raised at the 
inception and threshold by an aggrieved person. 
However, where· sanction order exists, but its legality and 
validity is put in question, such issue has to be raised in 
G 
the course of trial. [Paras 9-11] [265-B-D; 266-A-E] 
*Mansukh/al Vithaldas Chauhan vs. State of Gujarat 
(1997) 7 SCC 622: 1997 (3) Suppl. SCR 705; **Parkash 
Singh Badal and another vs. State of Punjab and others 
(2007) 1 sec 1: 2006 (10) Suppl. SCR 197 - relied on. 
H 
262" 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 13 (ADDL.) S.C.R 
A 
2. Having regard to the facts of the instant case, 
since cognizance was already taken against the appellant 
by the trial court, the High Court did not commit any error 
in leaving the question of validity of sanction open for 
consideration by the trial court and giving liberty to the 
B appellant to raise the issue concerning validity of 
sanction order in the course of trial. Such course was in 
accord with the decision of this Court in **Parkash Singh 
Badal and not unjustified. The impugned order did not call 
for any interference. However, it is left open to the 
c appellant to raise the issue of invalidity of sanction order 
before the trial court. In the· peculiar facts and 
circumstances of the case, appellant is permitted to 
appear before the trial cour

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