STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH versus JIYALAL

Citation: [2009] 12 S.C.R. 214 · Decided: 31-07-2009 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K.G. BALAKRISHNAN, P. SATHASIVAM · Disposal: Disposed off

Judgment (excerpt)

[2009] 12 S.C.R. 214 
A 
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH 
v. 
' , 
JIYALAL 
(Criminal Appeal No. 1386 of 2009) 
B 
JULY 31, 2009 
[K.G. BALAKRISHNAN, CJI AND P. SATHASIVAM, J.) 
PREVENT/ON OF CORRUPTION ACT, 1988: 
c 
ss. 19(1) and 19(3)(a) - Sanction for prosecution -
Conviction of accused u/ss 7 and 13(1)(d)(ii) rlw s.13(2) set 
aside by High Court on the ground that requisite sanction was 
not obtained properly- HELD: As per s.19(3)(a), the decision 
of trial court would not be reversed on the ground of any error! 
D omission/irregularity in the sanction order unless a failure of 
justice has in fact occasioned - In the instant case, High Court 
erred in setting aside the conviction on the ground that 
sanction order was not obtained properly as it was granted 
mechanically and that the sanction order was not proved as 
E the sanctioning officer was not examined as a witness in the 
Court - Both the grounds stated by High Court are not correct 
- High Court did not record a finding that any serious failure 
of justice was occasioned to accused - Appeal was not 
considered on merits - Matter is remitted to High Court for 
F 
decision of the appeal on merits. 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal 
No. 1386 of 2009. 
From the Judgment & Order dated 26.6.2006 of the High 
G Court of Judicature of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur in Criminal 
Appeal No. 1539 of 1995. 
Vibha Datta Makhija for the Appellant. 
Rajesh for the Respondent. 
H 
214 
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH v. JIYALAL 
215 
The following Order of the Court was delivered 
A 
ORDER 
1. Leave granted. 
2. Application for exemption from filing O.T. is allowed. 
8 
3. The State of Madhya Pradesh had filed a petition 
seeking special leave to appeal against a judgment given by 
· 1c 
a single judge at the Jabalpur Bench of the High Court of 
Madhya Pradesh (in Criminal Appeal No. 1539 of 1995). Prior c 
to the impugned judgment of the High Court, a Special Judge 
at Balaghat, Madhya Pradesh had convicted the Respondent 
for offences under Section 7 and Section 13(1)(d)(ii) read with 
Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 
[hereinafter referred to as 'the Act']. In pursuance of the findings 
D 
of the Special Judge, the Respondent had been sentenced to 
>--
undergo imprisonment for a period of one year and a fine of 
... 
Rs. 200-/- had also been imposed on him. Aggrieved by this 
result. the Respondent had filed an appeal before the High 
Court. 
E 
4. The learned single judge of the High Court set aside the 
conviction and the sentence mainly on the ground that the 
.., 
requisite sanction order had not been obtained properly. Under 
the scheme of the Act, a sanction order from an appropriate 
authority is required before proceeding with a prosecution under 
F 
the same Act. The rationale for requiring such a sanction order 
is to discourage frivolous prosecutions under the Act. In the 
present case, the learned single judge of the High Court had 
opined that the District Magistrate (the appropriate authority in 
this case) who had granted the sanction order in question had 
G 
not applied his mind. It was held that since the sanction order 
did not enumerate reasons, it had been given mechanically and 
was hence illegal. It was further stated that the said sanction 
order (Exhibit - P/6 in the proceedings before the Special 
Judge) had not been proved because the District Magistrate 
H 
216 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2009] 12 S.C.R. 
A who passed the order had not been subsequently examined as 
a witness by the prosecution in order to prove the same. 
5. In our opinion, both of the above-mentioned findings of 
the learned single judge of the High Court are not correct. 
8 Therefore, the High Court was not justified in interfering with the 
'finding, sentence or order passed by a Special Judge' under 
the Act. As per Section 19(3)(a) of the Act 'no finding, sentence 
or order passed by a special Judge shall be reversed or altered 
by a Court in appeCll, confirmation or revision on the ground of 
the absence of, or any error, omission or irregularity in, the 
C sanction required under sub-section (1), unless in the opinion 
of that court, a failure of justice has in fact been occasioned.' 
6. The relevant portion of the Act reads as follows :-
D 
"Section 19. Previous sanction necessary for prosecution 
(1) No court shall take cognizance of an offence punishable 
under section 7, 10, 11, 13 and 15 alleged to have been 
committed by a public servant, ex

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