STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH & ORS. versus ANAND MOHAN &ANR.

Citation: [2015] 8 S.C.R. 352 · Decided: 09-07-2015 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: DIPAK MISRA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

[2015] 8 S.C.R. 352 
A 
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH & ORS. 
B 
v. 
ANAND MOHAN &ANR. 
(Civil Appeal No. 1971 of2015) 
JULY09, 2015 
[DIPAK MISRA AND PRAFULLA C. PANT, JJ.) 
c 
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988-s."19(1)-Previous 
sanction for prosecution - Initiation of criminal proceedings 
ulss. 420, 467, 468, 471, 120Band201IPCandulss.13(1)(d) 
rlw s. 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act- Previous sanction 
for prosecution denied by Administrative Department of the 
o State - Thereafter, Department of Law and Legislative Affairs 
granted the sanction - The order granting sanction, set aside 
by High Court holding that the Department of Law having got 
authority to grant sanction in the year 1998 was not competent 
to grant sanction in respect of offence committed in the year 
· E 1997- On appeal, held: The power to grant the sanction 
already existed with the Department of Law and Legislative 
Affairs since 1988 -
Thus there is no infirmity as to 
competence of the Department to grant the sanction. 
F 
Allowing the appeal, the court 
HELD: 1. The High Court was not correct in holding 
that since appellant No. 2 was conferred power to grant 
the sanction only vide circular dated 28.02.1998, as such 
G it was not competent to grant the sanction relating to 
offences alleged to have been committed in the year 
1997. The power to grant the sanction for prosecution, 
already existed with the Department of Law and 
H 
352 
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH v. ANAND MOHAN 
353 
Legislative Affairs, since February, 1988. The circular A 
letter dated 28.02.1998 (Annexure P-5) does not confer 
any new power and it only clarifies that Department of 
Law and Justice is a competent authority not only in 
respect of investigations made by Lokayukta 
Organization, but also the State Economic Offences B 
Investigation Wing. The power with appellant No.2 to 
grant the sanction is, in fact, conferred by the rule, as 
amended vide notification dated 03.02.1988 published 
in the Official Gazette. After such amendment in the rule, 
whereby power to grant sanction was delegated to C 
Department of Law and Justice, it cannot be said that 
Administrative Department had power to decline 
sanction as it has done vide its order dated 10.07 .1997. 
[Paras 12-13) [363-D-H; 364-A] 
State of Bihar and others v. Rajmangal Ram 2014 
(4) SCR 602 = 2014 (11) sec 388 - Relied on. 
Sanjaysinh Ramrao Chavan Vs. Dattatray Gu/abrao 
D 
Pha/ke, 2015 (1) SCALE 457- Distinguished. 
E 
ODA and others vs. Jog7nder S. Monga and others 2003 
(6) Suppl. SCR 786 = 2004 (2) SCC 297 - Referred to. 
2. From the sanction granted by the Law F 
Department, copy of which is annexed asAnnexure P-8, 
it is evident that the authority has examined the material 
on record before granting the sanction. There is no 
infirmity as to the competence of appellant No.2 to grant 
the sanction. [Para 17-18) [365-C-E] 
G 
Case Law Reference 
2015 (1) SCALE 457 
Distinguished para 15 
2003 (6) Suppl. SCR 786, Referred to 
para 14 
H 
354 
A 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2015] 8 S.C.R. 
2014 (4) SCR 602 
Relied on 
para 16 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 
1971 of2015. 
B 
From the Judgment and Order dated 03.09.2013 in W. P. 
No. 21246.of2012 of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at 
Jabalpur. 
c 
Mishra Saurabh, Vanshaja Shukla and Ankit Kumar Lal 
for the Appellants. 
Anuj Puri and Abhishek Vikas for the Respondents. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
D 
PRAFULLA C. PANT, J. 1. This Appeal is directed against 
judgment and order dated 03.09.2013 passed by the High 
Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur whereby said Court has 
allowed Writ Petition No. 21246 of2012 challenging the order 
of sanction for prosecution, passed by Secretary, Law and 
E Legislative Affairs, Government of Madhya Pradesh, Bhopal. 
2. Brief facts of the case are that respondent No.1 was an 
Executive Engineer, and respondent No.2 was an Assistant 
Engineer with Bhopal DevelopmentAuthority (for short "BOA"). 
F Said authority got constructed 33/11 KV Sub-Station at Raksha 
Vihar Colony, Bhopal, for which tenders were invited on 
25.07.1995, and work order was given in favour of oneA.R.K. 
Electricals, Bhopal. The construction was completed on 
25.09.1997, and ownership of the sub-station was transferred 
G to Madhya Pradesh State Electricity Board (for short 
"MPSEB"). It is alleged that the respondents, in connivance 
with other accused, entered into a criminal conspiracy in 
connection with above construc
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.