STATE OF GOA versus BABU THOMAS

Citation: [2005] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 712 · Decided: 29-09-2005 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: H.K. SEMA · Disposal: Disposed off

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
STATE OF GOA 
v. 
BABU THOMAS 
SEPTEMBER 29, 2005 
B 
[H.K. SEMA AND G.P. MATHUR, JJ.] 
Service Law: 
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988; Ss. 3, 7, 13, 19/Penal Code, 1860; 
C Ss. 161 and 165: 
Acceptance of illegal gratification by a public servant from a 
contractor-Arrest-Framing of charges by Special Judge-Issuance of 
Sanction orders permitting prosecution of errant public servant-Termination 
of services of the employee-Challenge to-Set aside by the High Court-On 
D appeal, Held: Sub-section (I) of Section 19 of the 1998 Act prohibits Courts 
to take cognizance of an offence punishable under Sections 7, I 0, 11, 13 and 
15 of the Act except with the previous sanction of the competent authority--
Both the sanction orders were issued by the authorities not competent to 
issue the same-Since Special Judge took cognizance of the matter in the 
E absence of any sanction to prosecute the accused employee, it was invalid 
as taken without jurisdiction-Having regard to the gravity of the a/legations 
levelled against the employee, the competent authority is permitted to issue 
a proper sanction order afresh to proceed against the accused. 
F 
The respondent was employed_ as Joint Manager in Goa Shipyard 
Limited, a Govt. of India Undertaking. He was arrested by CID on the charge 
of accepting illegal gratification from the complainant, a contractor, in order 
to show favour for settlement of wages, etc. After completion of the 
investigation, the charge-sheet was filed by the CID under Sections 7 and 13 
of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and Sections 161and165 of the 
G I.P.C. before the trial Court. The prosecution had filed a sanction order 
permitting prosecution of the errant employee, issued under the signatures 
of the Company Secretary. However, the authority competent to remove the 
respondent from the post was the Board of Directors by way of passing a 
resolution to that effect. Pursuant to the sanction order, cognizance was taken 
by the Special Judge on 29.5.95. In the meantime, the respondent was 
I-I 
712 
STATE OF GOA v. BABU THOMAS 
713 
dismissed from service. Another sanction order dated 7.9.97 came to be issued A 
by the Chairman and Managing Director of the Company. Even that sanction 
order did not refer to any such resolution as required to be passed under the 
rules. Respondent challenged the order of termination, which was set aside 
by the High Court. Hence the present appeal. 
It was contended by the appellant that the Court should not, in an appl',al, B 
reverse or alter any finding, sentence or order passed by a special Judge on 
the ground of any error, omission or irregularity in the sanction as required 
under sub-section (I) of Section 19 of the Act, unless the Court finds a failure 
of justice has in fact been occasioned thereby. 
Disposing of the appeal, the Court 
HELD: I.I. The present is not the case where there has been mere 
irregularity, error or omission in the order of sanction as required under 
sub-section (l) of Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act. It goes to 
c 
the root of the prosecution case. Sub-section (1) of Section 19 clearly prohibits D 
that the Court shall not take cognizance of an offence punishable under 
Sections 7, 10, 11, 13 and 15 of the Act alleged to have been committed by a 
public servant, except with the previous sanction as stated in clauses (a), (b) 
and (c) of Section 19 of the Act. [718-8-C) 
State By Police Inspector v. T. Venkatesh Murthy, [2004) 7 SCC 763 E 
and Shri Durga Dass v. State of Himachal Pradesh. (1973) 2 SCC 213, held 
inapplicable. 
1.2. The sanction order is not a mere irregularity, error or omission. 
The first sanction order was issued by an authority that was not a competent 
authority to have issued such order under the Rules. The second sanction F 
order was also issued by an authority, which was not competent to issue the 
same under the relevant rules, apart from the fact that the same was issued 
retrospectively, which is bad. The cognizance was taken by the Special Judge 
on 29.5.95. Thus, when the Special Judge took cognizance on 29.5.95, there 
was no sanction order under the law authorizing him to take cognizance. This G 
is a fundamental error which invalidates the cognizance as without 
jurisdiction. [718-C-DI 
1.3. Having regard to the gravity of the allegations levelled against the 
respondent, the competent authority is permitted to issue a fresh sanction 
order by an authority competent under 

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