MOHD. IQBAL AHMAD versus STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

Citation: [1979] 2 S.C.R. 1007 · Decided: 18-01-1979 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S. MURTAZA FAZAL ALI, A.D. KOSHAL · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 4 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

• 
, 
,, 
' 
• 
' 
' 
MOHD. IQBAL AHMAD 
v. 
ST ATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH 
January 18, 1979 
r.s. MURTAZA FAZAL ALI AND A. D. KosHAL, JJ.] 
1007 
Prevention of Corruption Act, s. 5(2) read with s. 5(1) (d)-Case irrstuuieo 
'k.'fthnut proper sallc/ion-Efiect of-Proof of valfd sanction--Ilow could be 
established-Sanction-Its importance in 
prosecution9--Facts coming into 
existence subsequently-If could be rele1·ant-Pres11n1ptio11 that sanctioning 
aurhurity "H-'as satisfied that the accused received bribc-JVhen could arise-
If prosecution could be given a chance at appellate stage to prove 
that 
the 
sanctioning authori!Y had applied its 1nind before giving the sanction. 
The appellant who was charged with an offence under s. 5(2) read 
with 
s. 5(1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act was acquitted by the 
SpeCial 
Judge. 
But !·he I-ligh Court oq. appeal by the State, reversed the judgment of 
t'he Special Judge and convicted him. 
ln appt-:i1 to this Court it v,ras contended on behalf of tht~ appellant that 
there was no evidence to show on what materials the sanctioning 
authority 
applied its mind before granting the sanction under s. 6 of the Act. The entire 
proceedings are void ab initiv. 
Allowing the appeal, 
HELD: 1 (a). The prosecution of the appellunt was without valid sanc-
A 
B 
c 
tion and, therefore, cognizance taken by the Special Judge was \Vithout juris-
E 
diet.on. [1011 GJ 
(b) Any case instituted without proper sanction must fail 
because 
this 
being a n1anifest defect in the prosecution, the entire proceedings are rendered 
void ab initio. 
It is incumbent on the prosecuticn to prove that a va.lid sanc-
tion had been granted by the sanctioning authority after it was satisfied that 
a case had been made out constituting the offence. This should be done in 
two ways: either (i) by producing the original sanction which itself contains 
J' 
the. facts constituting the offence arid the grounds of ~t:tisfaction or (ii) bY 
adducing evidence aliunde shov,.:ing the facts placed before the authority and 
the sa1isfn·:.:ticn arrived at by it. f1010 B-D] 
In the present case no evidence, either pri1nary or secondary, had been led 
to rrcve the contents of the note placed bef(1re the sanctioning authority nor 
were the witnesses examined in a position to state the contents of the note . 
2(a). The grant of sanction is not an idle formality but a solemn and 
sa<:rosanct act whiclz affords protection to governnzent .rer·;a1u.~ aga!nsr frivolou1 
prosecutions and must therefore be strictly complied with before any pr(')SCCD. 
tion could be launched against public servan!s. [lOIOGJ 
G 
(b) There is no force in the argument of the State that the Court should 
presume the facts on the basis of evidence given by one of the wittleSleS and 
B 
the onJcr implementing the sanction mentioning those factl'i. 
What the Court 
8-119 SC!/7J 
'A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
H 
1008 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
l 1979] 2 S.C.R. 
has to see is whclher or not the sanctioning authority at the time o[ giving 
the sanction was aware of the facts ~nstituting the offence and applied its 
mind for the srune. 
Any subsequent f3.ct coming into existence after the reso-
lution t.ad been 
pat:~cd is wholly irrelevant. [1010 F] 
(c) 'fhcrc is equally no force in the S'::ate's contention that even if no 
fact& Vi'Crc mentioned in the resolution it must be presumed that the sanction-
inc: authority was satisfied that the accused had received a bribe. There is no 
:.!iuestion vf a presumption being available to the sanctioning authority because 
at that itace the occasion for drawing a presumption never arises since there 
is no case in the Court. flOll Bl 
(d) The presumption does not arise automatically but onJy on proof of 
certn.in circumstances that is to say, where it is proved by evidence in Court 
that the money said to have been paid to the accused was actually recovered 
from his possession. It is only then that the Court may presume the amount 
received would be deemed to be an illegal gratification. The question of sanc-
tion ariies before the proceedings come to the Court and the 
qnestion of 
drawing a presumption does not arise n•t this stage. [1011 Cl 
(e) The prosecution cannot be given a ci~nce to produce any 
material 
before the court at the appellate stage to satisfy that the sanctioning authority 
had duly applied its mind before giving the sanction. The prosecution bad 
been afforded a full and complete opportunity at the trial sta

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