P.L. TATWAL versus STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

Citation: [2014] 2 S.C.R. 1116 · Decided: 19-02-2014 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S. J. MUKHOPADHAYA · Disposal: Case Partly allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
(2014] 2 S.C.R. 1116 
P.L. TATWAL 
v. 
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH 
(Criminal Appeal No. 456 of 2014) 
FEBRUARY 19, 2014 
[SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA AND 
KURIAN JOSEPH, JJ.] 
PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION ACT, 1988: 
s. 19 (1) (c) rlw 13 (1) (d) and 13 (2) - Previous sanction 
-- Competent Authority - Assistant Engineer appointed when 
Corporation was ruled by Administrator - Sanction accorded 
by Standing Committee of Corporation - Held: Administrator 
D is only an ad hoc arrangement made by Government u/s 424 
of Municipal Corporation Act when an elected committee is 
superseded or dissolved -- Standing Committee being 
appointing authority of appellant, was the competent aut/1ority 
to accord sanction - Madhya Pradesh Municipal Corporation 
E Act, 1956 - SS. 58 and 424. 
s. 19 - Previous sanction for prosecution -Application of 
mind by competent authority - Held: The authority has to be 
apprised of all the relevant materials, and on such materials, 
it has to take a conscious decision as to whether the facts 
F would reveal the commission of an offence -- The decision 
making on relevant materials should be reflected in the order 
and if not, it should be capable of proof before the court -- In 
the instant case, though appellant made a specific objection 
before Special Judge, the order does not indicate any inquiry 
G by the court in this regard -- Orders passed by High Court and 
trial court are· set aside and matter is remitted to trial court to 
record a finding as to valid sanction - It may also consider 
the effect of quashing of the prosecution as regards superior 
officers and there being no sanction for prosecution of others. 
H 
1116 
P.L. TATWAL v. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH 
1117 
The appellant, an Assistant Engineer, along with 
A 
others, was sought to be prosecuted for offences 
punishable u/ss 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of the Prevention of 
Corruption Act, 1988 on the allegations of irregularities 
in the award of the contract and construction of 
administrative building for the Corporation. At the 
B 
relevant time, the Corporation was ruled by an 
Administrator. However, the sanction was granted by the 
Standing Committee of the Corporation. 
In the instant appeal, it was mainly contended for the 
appellant that since he was appointed in service by the 
C 
Administrator, sanction for prosecution could be given 
only by the Administrator and in his absence by the State 
Government; that there was no proper and valid sanction 
by the competent authority; and that since the 
proceedings for prosecution against his superior officers 
D 
had been quashed, proceedings in his case also be 
quashed as it was not likely in such a situation to have a 
successful prosecution. 
Allowing the appeal in part, the Court 
HELD: 1.1 In view of s. 19 (1) (c) of the Prevention of 
Corruption Act, 1988, the competent authority to give 
previous sanction in the case of the appellant is the 
authority competent to- remove him from service. No 
doubt the appointing authority is the authority competent 
E-
F 
to remove him from service. Under s. 58 of the Municipal 
Corporation Act, 1956, the Standing Committee is the 
competent authority for appointment of the appellant. The 
Administrator is only an ad hoc arrangement made by the 
Government u/s 424 of the Municipal Corporation Act G 
when an elected committee is superseded or dissolved. 
It so happened that the appointment of the appellant was 
at a time when the Municipal Corporation was ruled by 
the Administrator. It is the Standing Committee which 
gave the sanction by its order dated 27 .08.1996. 
H 
1118 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2014] 2 S.C.R. 
A Therefore, the trial court and the High Court cannot be 
faulted in taking the view that there was an order of 
sanction for prosecution from the competent authority. 
[para 7-9] [1122-C-D; 1123-A-B, D] 
8 
1.2 The grant of sanction is only an administrative 
function. It is intended to protect public servants against 
frivolous and vexatious litigation. It also ensures that a 
dishonest officer is brought before law and is tried in 
accordance with law. Thus, it is a serious exercise of 
C power by the competent authority. The authority has to 
be apprised of all the relevant materials, and on such 
materials, it has to take a conscious decision as to 
whether the facts would reveal the commission of an 
offence under the relevant provisions. The decision 
making on relevant materials should be reflected in the 
D order and

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