SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE(C.B.I) versus DEEPAK CHOWDHARY AND ORS.

Citation: [1995] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 818 · Decided: 17-08-1995 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K. RAMASWAMY, B.L. HANSARIA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE (C.B.I). 
v. 
DEEPAK CHOWDHARY AND ORS. 
AUGUST 17, 1995 
[K. RAMASWAMY AND B.L. HANSARIA, JJ.) 
Criminal Law : 
Prevention of Co11Uption Act, 1947 : 
Ss.6(1)(c), 5(1)(d) 5(2Hublic servant-t:omplaint againsHnvestiga-
tion-Sanction for prosecution-Opportunity of hearing before grant of sanc-
tion-Held, need not be afforded since grant of sanction is an administrative 
function-Exoneration in departmental inquiry not relevant at the time of 
grant of sanction. 
On a complaint that the bank, whereof the respondent was the 
Branch Manag,er at the relevant time, had been, in connivance with some 
of its officers, defrauded for a sum of Rs. 45,000, the appellant investigated 
the matter and was accorded sanction under s.6(1) (c) of the Prevention 
of Corruption Act 1947, to file the charge sheet against the respondent for 
offences punishable under ss.120B, 420, 467, 468, 471, 477.A, 201and109 
IPC as also under s.5(1)(d) read with section 5(2) of the Prevention of 
Corruption Act. The respondent challenged the sanction by filing a writ 
petition before the High Court, which quashed the sanction on the ground 
that the respondent was not afforded any opportunity of hearing before 
granting the sanction and in the departmental inquiry the respondent had 
been exonerated. Aggrieved; the Superintendent of Police (C.B.I.) filed the 
appeal by special leave. 
Allowing the appeal and setting aside the order of the High Court, 
G this Court 
HELD : 1. The grant of sanction under s.6(1) (c) of the Prevention 
of Corruption Act, 1947 being only an administrative function, an oppor-
~ 
tunity of hearing to the accused need not be provided before according the 
sanction, though the accused may be saddled with the liability to be 
H prosecuted in a court of law. Nor is the fact of departmental exoneration 
818 
.. 
1 
SUPDT. OF POLICE v. D. CHOWDHARY 
819 
by disciplinary authority relevant. What is mderial at that time is that the A 
necessary facts collected during investigation constituting the offence have 
to be placed before the sanctioning authority and it has to consider the 
material. Prima f acie, the authority is required to reach the satisfaction 
that the relevant facts would constitute the offence and then either grant 
or refuse to grant sanction. The High Court, was in error in holding that B 
the order of sanction is vitiated by violation of the principles of natural 
justice. [820-D-F] 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 7940 of 
1995. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 2.4.92 of the Calcutta High 
Court in Matter No. 489 of 1987. 
N.N. Goswamy, P. Parmeswaran, T.C. Sharma, C.V.S. Rao and Ms. 
Neelam for the Appellants. 
~ 
T.C. Ray, Ms. Mridual Ray Bharadwaj, Bhola Prasad Singh, Sumant 
c 
D 
• 
Bhardwaj and Ms. Mridula Ray for the Respondents. 
The following Order of. the Court was delivered : 
Leave granted. 
Delay of 232 days condoned. 
The facts lie in a short compass. During the year 1982, while the 
respondent No. 1 was working as a Branch Manager in Desh Priya branch 
E 
F 
of the United Bank of India at Calcutta it was realised that certain officers 
working in that bank had conspired with a creditor and the bank was 
defrauded for a sum of Rs. 45,000. On a complaint laid, a crime case was 
registered and the appellant investigated the matter and submitted the 
report to the competent authority for sanction, who, by its order dated the 
14th January, 1987 accorded sanction under 6(1-C) of the Prevention of G 
Corruption Act, 1947 (for short, 'PC Act) to file the charge-sheet against 
the respondent for the offences punishable under Section 120B, 420, 467, 
468, 471477A, 201and109 IPC and also under Section 5(1) (d) read with 
Section 5(2) of the PC Act. The respondent filed writ petition in the High 
Court to quash the sanction. The High Court by the impugned order dated H 
820 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1995) SUPP. 2 S.C.R, 
A the 2nd April, 1992 in Matter No. 498/87 quashed the sanction on two 
grounds, namely, that the respondent was not given any opportunity of 
hearing before granting sanction and in the departmental enquiry con-
ducted by the Bank, respondent was exonerated of the charge. Therefore, 
it was not expedient to proceed with the prosecution of the respondent. 
_ B 
Hen~e, the above appeal has been filed. 
It is contended for the appellant that the question of giving an 
opportunity to the charged officer before granting sanction does not a

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