LexSTATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH versus NISHANT SAREEN
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B [2010] 13 (ADDL.) S.C.R. 1200 STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH v. NISHANT SAREEN (Criminal Appeal No. 2353 OF 2010) DECEMBER 09, 2010 [AFTAB ALAM AND R. M. LODHA, JJ.] Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - s. 19 - Previous sanction necessary for prosecution - Reviewing of order C granting or refusing sanction to prosecute public servant on same materials by sanctioning authority - Permissibility of - Held: Not permissible - Power of the sanctioning authority being not of continuing character could be exercised only once on the same materials - On basis of the fresh materials D collected by the investigating agency subsequent to the earlier order, sanctioning authority can reconsider the matter and form an opinion to grant sanction to prosecute the public servant - On facts, no fresh materials collected by the investigating agency and placed before the sanctioning E authority for reconsideration and/or for review of the earlier order refusing to grant sanction - Thus, sanctioning authority not justified in changing its opinion and ordering sanction to prosecute the public servant on same material - Review. F The respondent - Drug Inspector was caught red- handed accepting the bribe from the hospital owner. The respondent was arrested and remanded to judicial custody. The Vigilance Department sought for sanction under Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 from the Government to prosecute the respondent. G The competent authority did not find any justification in granting sanction to prosecute the respondent and, thus, refused the sanction. The Vigilance Department took up the matter again for grant of sanction. The competent authority re-considered the matter and granted sanction H 1200 STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH v. NISHANT 1201 SAREEN to prosecute the respondent. Therefore, the appellant- A State filed the instant appeal. Dismissing th~ appeal, the Court B HELD: 1.1 The object underlying Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 is to ensure that a public servant does not suffer harassment on false, frivolous, concocted or unsubstantiated allegations. The exercise of power under Section 19 is not an empty formality since the Government or for that matter the sanctioning authority is supposed to apply its mind to the C entire material and evidence placed before it and on examination thereof reach conclusion fairly, objectively and consistent with public interest as to whether or not in the facts and circumstances sanction be accorded to prosecute the public servant. [Para 8) [1207-D-F] 1.2 The Government in the matter of grant or refusal to grant sanction exercises statutory power and that would not mean that power once exercised cannot be exercised again or at a subsequent stage in the absence of express power of review in no circumstance whatsoever. However, the power of review is not unbridled or unrestricted. Once the statutory power under Section 19 of the 1988 Act or Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 has been exercised by the Government or the competent authority, as the case may be, it is not permissible for the sanctioning authority D E F to review or reconsider the matter on the same materials again. It is so because unrestricted power of review m~y not bring finality to such exercise and on change of. the Government or change of the person authorised to G exercise power of sanction, the matter concerning sanction may be reopened by such authority for the reasons best known to it and a different order may be passed. The opinion on the same materials, thus, may keep on changing and there may not be any end to such H 1202 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2010] 13 (ADDL.) S.C.R. A statutory exercise. A change of opinion per se on the same materials cannot be a ground for reviewing or reconsidering the earlier order refusing to grant sanction. However, in a case where fresh materials have been collected by the investigating agency subsequent to the B earlier order and placed before the sanctioning authority and on that basis, the matter is reconsidered by the sanctioning authority and in the light of the fresh materials an opinion is formed that sanction to prosecute the public servant may be granted, there may not be any C impediment to adopt such a course. [Para 12] [1210-E-H; 1211-A-C] 1.3 In the instant case, it is not the case of the appellant-State that fresh materials were collected by
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.