VIVEK BATRA versus UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS

Citation: [2016] 8 S.C.R. 177 · Decided: 18-10-2016 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: RANJAN GOGOI · Disposal: Dismissed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

[2016] 8 S.C.R. 177 
VIVEK BATRA 
v. 
UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS 
(Criminal Appeal No. 2491 of2014) 
OCTOBER 18, 2016 
[RANJAN GOGOi AND PRAFULLA C. PANT, JJ.) 
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - s.19 and ss. 7, JO, 11, 
A 
B 
13 and 15 - Public Servant - Offence of criminal misconduct -
Assets disproportionate to the known sources of income - Petition 
C 
chaf/enging sanction for prosecution of appellant u!s.13 of the Act 
- Dismissed by High Court - Propriety - Held: Sanction cannot be 
held invalid only for the reason that in the administrative notings, 
different authorities have opined differently before the competent 
authority took the decision in the matter - There was proper 
application of mind on the part of the co1i1petent authority before 
D 
the sanction was accorded - No reason to interfere with impugned 
order of High Court - Government of India (Allocation of Business) 
Rules, 1961- rr.3(3), (4) - Central Vigilance Commission Act, 2003 
- s.8 (g). 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
E 
HELD: 1. The sanction cannot be held invalid only for the 
reason that in the administrative no tings different authorities have 
opined differently before the competent authority took the 
decision in the matter. It is not a case where the finance Minister 
was not the competent authority to grant the sanction. What is 
F 
required u/s.19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 is that 
for taking the cognizance of an offence, punishable u/ss. 7, 10, 
11, 13 and 15 of the Act committed by the public servant, is 
necessary by the Central Govemment or the State Government, 
as the case may be, and in the case of a public servant, who is 
neither employed in connection with affairs of the Union or the G 
State, from the authority competent to remove him. Sub-section 
(2) of Section 19 of the Act provides that where for any reason 
whatsoever any doubt arises as to whether the previous sanction, 
as required under sub-section (1) should be given by the Central 
177 
H 
178 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2016] 8 S.C.R. 
Government or the State Government or any authority, such 
sanction shall be given by that Government or authority which 
could have been competent to remove the public servant from 
his office at the time when the offence was alleged to have been 
committed. [Para 10][183-B-E] 
2. It is evident that there had been proper application of 
mind on the part of the competent authority before the sanction 
was accorded. Perusal of the record does not indicate that any 
decision was taken by the competent authority, at any point of 
time, not to grant sanction so as to give the decision to grant 
sanction the colour of a review of any such earlier order. The 
opinion ofCVC, which was reaffirmed and ultimately prevailed in 
according the sanction, cannot be said to be irrelevant for the 
reason that clause (g) of Section 8 of the Central Vigilance 
Commission Act, 2003 provides that it is one of the functions of 
the CVC to tender advice to the Central Government on such 
matters as may be referred to it by the Government. [Para 
11][184-C-D] 
Jasbir Singh Chhabra and Ors. v. State of Punjab and 
Ors. (2010) 4 SCC 192; Sethi Auto Service Station and 
another v. Delhi Development Authority and Ors. (2009) 
1 SCC 180: 2008 (14) SCR 598 - relied on. 
Nazir Ahmad v. King Emperor AIR 1936 PC 253; 
Bachhittar Singh v. The State of Punjab (1962) Suppl. 
3 SCR 713 - referred to. 
Case Law Reference 
AIR 1936 PC 253 
referred to 
Para4 
(1962) Suppl. 3 SCR 713 
referred to 
Para 7 
(2010) 4 sec 192 
relied on 
Para8 
2008 (14) SCR 598 
relied on 
Para9 
G 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 
H 
2491 of2014. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 29.10.2013 of the High Court 
of Judicature at Bombay in Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 3654 of2012. 
K. K. Venugopal, Sr. Adv., Ms. Prachi V. Sharma, Ms. Suhasini 
VIVEK BATRA v. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS 
179 
Sen, Ms. Shraddha Deshmukh, Pradeep Kumar Bakshi, Advs. for the 
A 
Appellant. 
Ms. Vibha Datta Makhija, A. K. Panda, Sr. Advs., Abhinav 
Mukherjee, Ms. Niranjana Singh, Ms. Disha Yaish, P. K. Dey, B. V. 
Balaram Das, Shailender Saini, M. K. Maroria, Mrs. Anil Katiyar, Advs. 
for the Respondents. 
B 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered .by 
PRAFULLA C. PANT, J. 1. This appeal is .directed against 
judgment and order dated 29.10.2013, passed by the High Court of 
Judicature at Bombay in Criminal Writ Petition No. 3654of2012, whereby 
the petitio
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.