STATE OF KARNATAKA versus AMEER JAN

Citation: [2007] 9 S.C.R. 1105 · Decided: 18-09-2007 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.B. SINHA · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

STA TE OF KARNATAKA 
A 
v. 
AMEERJAN 
SEPTEMBER 18, 2007 
[S.B. SINHA AND HARJIT SINGH BEDI, JJ.) 
B 
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988: 
ss. 19, 7, 13(/)(d) r/w 13(2)-Sanction for prosecution of public 
servant-Sa1Jctioning authority passed order of sanction solely on basis of C 
report made by the JG Police-Said report not brought on record-Held: The 
order of sanction did not demonstrate proper application of mind on part of 
the sanctioning authority-Hence, High Court justified in holding the order 
of sanction to be illegal and on that ground setting aside conviction of the 
public servant concerned. 
D 
Respondent was working as an Assistant in the Office of the Registrar 
of Firms and Co-operative Societies. He allegedly demanded bribe of Rs.300/ 
- from PW3, who had approached him for grant of a certificate. An order of 
sanction was issued under Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 
1988 for prosecution of Respondent for offences punishable under Sections E 
7, 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of the said Act. The sanction order was issued 
solely on basis of purported report issued by Inspector General of Police. The 
sanctioning authority examined himself before the Trial Court as PW-8. He, 
however, did not produce the report of the Inspector General of Police and 
even otherwise the same was not brought on record. Trial Court convicted 
Respondent. High Court, however, held that the order of sanction was illegal F 
and on that ground set aside the conviction of Respondent. Hence the present 
appeal 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1. An order of sanction should not be construed in a pedantic G 
manner. But, it is also well settled that the purpose for which an order of 
sanction is required to be passed should always be borne in mind. Ordinarily, 
the sanctioning authority is the best person to judge as to whether the public 
servant concerned should receive the protection under the Act by refusing to 
1105 
H 
1106 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2007] 9 S.C.R 
A accord sanction for his prosecution or not. For the aforementioned purpose, 
application of mind on the part of the sanctioning authority is imperative. The 
order granting sanction must be demonstrative of the fact that there had been 
proper application of mind on the part of the sanctioning authority. 
(Paras 7 and 8) (1108-F, G, HJ 
B 
2.1. In the present case, the sanctioning authority had purported to pass 
the order of sanction solely on the basis of the report made by the Inspector 
General of Police, Karnataka Lokayuktha. The said report has not been 
brought on record. Thus, whether in the said report, either in the body thereof 
or by annexing therewith the relevant documents, JG Police Karnataka 
C Lokayuktha had placed on record the materials collected on investigation of 
the matter which would prima facie establish existence of evidence in regard 
to the commission of the offence by the public servant concerned is not evident. 
(Para 8] (1109-A, BJ 
2.2. The High Court called for the original reco_rds. It had gone thereinto. 
D It was found that except the report of the Inspector General of Police, 
Karnataka Lokayuktha, no other record was made available before the 
sanctioning authority. The order of sanction .also stated so. PW-8, the 
sanctioning authority, also did not have the occasion to consider the records 
except the purported report. Therefore, the judgment ofHigh Court does not 
suffer from any legal infirmity. [Paras 15 and 16) [1112-E, F, GJ 
E 
Prakash Singh Badal and Anr. v. State of Punjab and Ors., (2007) 1 
sec 1, distinguished. 
Gokulchand Dwa'rkadas Morarka v. The King, AIR (1948) PC 82; 
Jaswant Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR (1958) SC 124; Mohd. Iqbal Ahmedv. 
F State of Andhra Pradesh, (1979] 4 sec 172; R.S. Nayakv. A.R. Antulay, (1984) 
2 SCC 183; Mansukh/al Vitha/das Chauhan v. State of Gujarat, (1997) 7 SCC 
622 and Sankaran Moitra v. Sadhna Das & Anr., (2006] 4 S_~C 584, referred 
to. 
G 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. 766 of 
2001. 
H 
From the Judgment and Order dated I 9.06.200.0 ~f the High Court of 
Kamataka at Bangalore in Criminal Appeal No. 222 of 199~. 
Sanjay R. Hedge and Ramesh S. Jadhav for the Appellant. 
1· 
..... 
_k 
-l._ 
STATEv. AMEERJAN [SINHA,J.] 
1107 
Sanjay Parikh, A.M. Singh and Jitin Sahni for the Respondent. 
A 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by' 
S.B. SINHA, J. 1. Interpretation and/ or application of the provisions 
of Section 19 of the Pr

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