STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH C.B.I. versus MAHESH G. JAIN

Citation: [2013] 3 S.C.R. 850 · Decided: 28-05-2013 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: B.S. CHAUHAN · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 3 judgment(s) · cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
[2013] 3 S.C.R. 850 
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH C.B.I. 
v. 
MAHESH G. JAIN 
(Criminal Appeal No. 2345 of 2009) 
MAY 28, 2013. 
[DR. 8.S. CHAUHAN AND DIPAK MISRA, JJ.] 
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988: 
c 
s.19(1) read with ss. 7, 13(1)(d) and 2 - Public servant-
Sanction for prosecution - Demand and acceptance of illegal 
gratification - Trial court on merits holding against accused, 
but acquitting him solely on the ground that sanction order 
was defective - Hih Court declining leave to appeal prayed 
D by prosecution - Held: When there is an order of sanction by 
competent authority indicating application of mind, the same 
should not be lightly dealt with -
Minor irregularities and 
flimsy technicalities are to be ignored and cannot be allowed 
to become tools in the hands of accused -
While sanctity 
E attached lo an order of sanction should never be forgotten, 
but simultaneously rampant corruption in society has to be 
kept in view -
In the obtaining factual matrix, in the instant 
case the approach of tn'al Judge as well as that of single Judge 
of High Court is wholly incorrect and does not deserve 
F acceptance -
Since trial court has also recorded its 
conclusions on merits dealing with every aspect and there 
has been no deliberation on merits by High Court, matte 
remanded to High Court. 
s.19(1) - Public servant - Sanction for prosecution -
G Principles culled out. 
Appeal - Power of appellate court - Explained. 
On a complaint of a transporter, who had given his 
H 
850 
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH C.B.I. v. 
851 
MAHESH G. JAIN 
vehicles to State Bank of India on contract basis and was 
A 
asked by the accused-respondent to pay illegal 
gratification for getting his cheques and Tax Deducted at 
Source certificates, the CBI took up the investigation and 
after successful trap operation, obtained the sanction 
order and filed the charge-sheet before the Special Judge 
B 
for commission of offences u/ss 7 and 13 (1) (d) read with 
s. 2 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The 
Special Judge found the case proved against the 
accused, but acquitted him solely on the ground that the 
sanction order was defective and illegal. The CBI filed an c 
application for grant of leave, which was declined by the 
single Judge of the High Court. 
In the instant appeal filed by the CBI, the question for 
consideration before the Court was: "whether the High 
Court was justified in refusing to grant leave to file an 
D 
appeal by the Central Bureau of Investigation, to assail 
the judgment and order of acquittal passed by the Court 
of Special Judge?" 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
E 
HELD: 1.1. Section 19(1) of the Prevention of 
Corruption Act, 1988 postulates that no court shall take 
cognizance of an offence punishable u/ss 7, 10, 11, 13 
and 15 alleged to have been committed by a public 
F 
servant except with the previous sanction. The said 
provision enumerates about the competent authorities. In 
the case at hand, the competence of the authority who 
has granted sanction is not in question. [para 5] [857-C] 
Jaswant Singh v. State of Punjab 1958 SCR 762 = G 
1958 AIR 124; and Basdeo Agarwala v. Emperor AIR 1945 
FC 18 - referred to 
Gokulchand Dwarkadas Morarka v. The King AIR 1948 
PC 84 - referred to 
H 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
852 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2013] 3 S.C.R. 
1.2. From the decision of this Court, the following 
principles can be culled out: 
(a) It is incumbent on the prosecution to prove that 
the valid sanction has been granted by the 
sanctioning authority after being satisfied that a case 
for sanction has been made out. 
(b) The sanction order may expressly show that the 
sanctioning authority has perused the material 
placed before him and, after consideration of the 
circumstances, 
has 
granted 
sanction 
for 
prosecution. 
(c) The prosecution may prove by adducing the 
evidence that the material was placed before the 
sanctioning authority and his satisfaction was 
arrived at upon perusal of the material placed before 
him. 
(d) Grant ,of sanction is only an administrative 
1unction and the sanctioning authority is required to 
prima facie reach the satisfaction that relevant facts 
would constitute the offence. 
(e) The adequacy of material placed before the 
sanctioning authority cannot be gone into by the 
court as it does not sit in appeal over the sanction 
order.' 
(f) If the sanctioning authority has perused all the 
materials placed before him and some of them 

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