VIJAY RAJMOHAN versus STATE REPRESENTED BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, CBI, ACB, CHENNAI, TAMIL NADU

Citation: [2022] 19 S.C.R. 563 · Decided: 11-10-2022 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: BHUSHAN RAMKRISHNA GAVAI · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 4 judgment(s) · cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
563
VIJAY RAJMOHAN
v.
STATE REPRESENTED BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, CBI,
ACB, CHENNAI, TAMIL NADU
(Criminal Appeal No. 1746 of 2022)
OCTOBER 11, 2022
[B. R. GAVAI AND PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI
NARASIMHA, JJ.]
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1981 – s.19 – Central Vigilance
Commission Act, 2003 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Delhi
Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 – Lokpal and Lokayuktas
Act, 2013 – Whether an order of the Appointing Authority granting
sanction for prosecution of a public servant u/s.19 of the PC Act,
would be rendered illegal on the ground of acting as per dictation
if it consults the Central Vigilance Commission for its decision –
Held: The position of law and the legal regime obtained by virtue
of the five legislations, the Cr.P.C, DSPE Act, PC Act, CVC Act, and
Lokpal Act on the subject of corruption, operates as integrated
scheme – The five legislations must be read together to enable the
authorities to sub-serve the common purpose and objectives
underlying these legislations – CVC, constituted under the CVC Act
is specifically entrusted with the duty and function of providing
expert advice on the subject – It may be necessary for the appointing
authority to call for and seek the opinion of the CVC before it takes
any decision on the request for sanction for prosecution – The
statutory scheme under which the appointing authority could call
for, seek and consider the advice of the CVC can neither be termed
as acting under dictation nor a factor which could be referred to as
an irrelevant consideration – Opinion of the CVC is only advisory
– It is nevertheless a valuable input in the decision-making process
of the appointing authority – Final decision of the appointing
authority must be of its own by application of independent mind –
Thus, there is no illegality in the action of the appointing authority,
the DoPT, if it calls for, refers, and considers the opinion of the
CVC before it takes its final decision on the request for sanction for
prosecuting a public servant – In the present case, on examining
the correspondence and the long-drawn communications between
[2022] 19 S.C.R. 563
563
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
564
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 19 S.C.R.
the CBI, the DoPT, and the CVC, it is found that the inquiry made
by the appointing authority, the DoPT, was only for soliciting further
information, and particularly the opinion given by CVC is also
advisory – Sanction order of the DoPT dated 24.07.2017 is an
independent decision of the department that was taken based on
the material before it – Plea of the appellant that the order of
sanction suffers from illegality due to non-application of mind or
acting under dictation, not accepted.
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1981 – s.19 – Central Vigilance
Commission Act, 2003 – s.8(1)(f) – Whether the period of three
months (extendable by one more month for legal consultation - As
per the 2018 Amendment through the 2nd Proviso to s.19(1) of the
PC Act) for the Appointing Authority to decide upon a request for
sanction is mandatory or not and whether the criminal proceedings
can be quashed if the decision is not taken within the mandatory
period – Held: The period of three months, extended by one more
month for legal consultation, is mandatory – Consequence of non-
compliance with this mandatory requirement shall not be quashing
of the criminal proceeding for that very reason – The competent
authority shall be accountable for the delay and be subject to judicial
review and administrative action by the CVC u/s.8(1)(f) of the CVC
Act.
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.197 – Prevention of
Corruption Act, 1981 – s.97 – Held: The public policy behind
providing immunity from prosecution without the sanction of the
State is to insulate the public servant against harassment and
malicious prosecution – It is for this very reason that good faith
clauses are incorporated in statutes extending protection to officers
exercising statutory duties in good faith – Statutory provisions
requiring sanction before prosecution either u/s.197 Cr.P.C. or u/
s.97 of the PC Act also intend to serve the very same purpose of
protecting a public servant – However, the said protection is neither
a shield against dereliction of duty nor an absolute immunity against
corrupt practices – The limited immunity or bar is only subject to a
sanction by the appointing authority – Grant of sanction being an
exercise of executive power is subject to the standard principles of
judicial 

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