LexSTATE OF PUNJAB & ANR. versus MOHAMMED IQBAL BHATTI
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2009] 11 S.C.R. 790 A STATE OF PUNJAB & ANR. v. MOHAMMED IQBAL BHATII (Civil Appeal No. 4969 of 2009) B JULY 31, 2009 [S.B. SINHA AND DEEPAK VERMA, JJ.] Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: s.197 - State's power of review in the matter of grant of sanction in terms of s.197 - c Sanction for prosecution refused by competent authority - Matter again placed before competent authority after about 2 years and sanction granted - High Court holding that State had no power of review - Interference with - Held: Not called for - High Court had perused the entire records and arrived D at a finding of fact that no fresh material was placed before the competent authority for reconsidering the matter- Perusal of earlier order showed that before the competent authority all the relevant records were produced - Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 166 - Rules of Business - rr.8 and 9. E An FIR was lodged against respondent-public servant. The sanction for prosecution was refused by ... competent authority. The matter was again placed before the competent authority and sanction was granted. The F respondent filed writ petition before High Court. High Court allowed the writ petition holding that the State had no power of review and in any event, the impugned order could not be passed as Uie State while passing its earlier order dated 15.12.2003 had exhausted its jurisdiction. Hence the appeal. G Dismissing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1. The respondent is a public servant. The .. Governor of the State of Punjab is his appointing H 790 STATE OF PUNJAB & ANR. v. MOHAMMED IQBAL 791 BHATII authority. He is, therefore, not removable from his office A save by and with the sanction of the Government and in that view of the matter if he is accused in any offence alleged to have been committed by him while acting or purporting to act in discharge of his official duty, grant of prior sanction is imperative in character in terms of B Section 197 Cr.PC. The power of the State is performed by an executive authority authorized in this behalf in terms of the Rules of Executive Business framed under "' Article 166 of the Constitution of India insofar as such a power has to be exercised in terms of Article 162 thereof. c Once a sanction is refused to be granted, no appeal lies thereagainst. [Para 6] [795-G-H; 796-A-B] 2. Although the State in the matter of grant or refusal to grant sanction exercises statutory jurisdiction, the D same, however, would not mean that po.wer once exercised cannot be exercised once again. For exercising its jurisdiction at a subsequent stage, express power of review in the State may not be necessary as even such a power is administrative in character. It is, however, beyond any cavil that while passing an order for grant of E sanction, serious application of mind on the part of the concerned authority is imperative. The legality and/or validity of the order granting sanction would be subject to review by the criminal courts. An order refusing to grant !:!anction may attract judicial review by the Superior F Courts. All such material facts and material evidences must be considered by it. The sanctioning authority must apply its mind on such material facts and evidences collected _during the investigation. Even such application of mind does not appear from the order of sanction, G extrinsic evidences may be placed before the court in that • behalf. While granting sanction, the authority cannot take into consideration an irrelevant fact nor can it pass an order on extraneous consideration not germane for_ H 792 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 11 S.C.R. A passing a statutory order. It is also well settled that the Superior Courts cannot direct the sanctioning authority either to grant sanction or not to do so. The source of power of an authority passing an order of sanction must also be considered. The concerned authority cannot also B pass an order of sanction subject to ratification of a higher authority. [Paras 7 and 8) [796-C-H; 797-A] Mansukhla/ vitha/das Chauhan v. State of Gujarat (1997) 3 SCC 622; State (Anti Corruption Branch) Govt. of N.C. T. c of Delhi and Anr. v. Dr. R.C. Anand and Anr. (2004) 4 sec 615, relied on 3. The High Court called for the entire records. It perused the same. It noticed that several queries were raised but remained unanswered. The Departmental D proceeding initiated against the respondent was drop
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.