Four Months’ Time Limit U/Sec 19 PC Act to Decide A 'Sanction Request' Mandatory; But Criminal Proceedings Cannot Be Quashed for Delay: Supreme Court

CAUSE TITLE:
Vijay Rajmohan Vs State

DATE OF ORDER:
11 October 2022

JUDGE:
THE HON'BLE Justices BR Gavai and PS Narasimha

PARTIES:
Appellant: VIJAY RAJMOHAN
Respondent: STATE REPRESENTED BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, CBI, ACB, CHENNAI, TAMIL NADU

Subject

The main issue in the following case is that, is the 3 months period mentioned for the sanction of a government servant a timeline which should be followed as a guideline, or is the period of 3 months a mandatory timeframe in which the sanction should be ordered.

Brief Facts

• The appellant who is an official of the central secretarial service, for the Government of India, from 1/1/2005 to 31/10/2012, his official postings were in New Delhi and Bangalore, and during his service period he had gathered assets of around Rs.79,17,593/- which was disproportionate from his know income sources. The CBI registered a fir for the matter of huge disproportion of assets on 20/11/2012 against the appellant, his father and his mother under S.109 of IPC.
• On 8/9/2015 CBI completed the investigation and submitted the report before the Department of personnel and training (DoPT), on 26/11/2015 the DoPT sought 23 clarifications from the CBI.
• The CBI on 15/12/2015 gave the clarification to the DoPT. On 7/1/2016 DoPT sought opinion from the Central vigilance commission (CVC) as they thought CBI had errors in their investigation. On 18/3/2016 the CVC after reviewing the initial proposal sought clarification from the CBI. 1/6/2016 CVC after examining the clarification given by CBI, CVC believed there to be a strong case of sanction subject that the CBI conduct a re-investigation on certain aspect of the case, and was subsequently communicated to the DoPT. DoPT on 26/8/2016 sought conformation from the CVC whether it recommended grant for sanction or advised CBI for re-investigation. On 20/9/2016 CVC cleared that it has advised for a re-investigation from the CBI.
• On 5/10/2016 DoPT treated the initial proposal as closed until the re-investigation is completed and delivered by the CBI. 27/9/2016 the re-investigation was completed, and CBI submitted the revised explanation of the 7 issues which were asked by CVC.
• 25/11/2016 CVC was satisfied with the explanation given by CBI. 9/2/2017 CVC advised DoPT that it was satisfied with the investigation and offered the opinion to grant the sanction.
• On 24/7/2017 the DoPT granted sanction.
• The trial court on 13/12/2018 discharged the appellant under S.227 of Cr.P.C and the reason for the discharge was stated as the lack of self-reliance by the DoPT and sole reliance on CVC for the decision.
• The state under S.397of Cr.P.C filed for revision petition in the Madras High court, the high court stated that the CVC has a function to tender advice to Central Government on the matter of grant of sanction, hence its advice and opinion cannot be termed irrelevant and reversed the order of the trial court.

Legal Provision Involved

• 109 IPC

Abetment (encouragement) done in any offence is a crime, but there is no codified punishment given in IPC for such an offence.

• 13(1) and (2) PC act

It talks about the criminal misconduct by a public servant, it also talks about the possession of disproportionate assets know from his income source.

• 197 Cr.P.C

A person employed by the government, accused of any offence needs prior sanction from a competent officer, court cannot take cognizance of such offence expect with previous sanction.

• 19 PC act

It talks about the previous sanction necessary for prosecution of a public officer

• 227 Cr.P.C

It talks about discharge, that if after consideration of data and documents submitted, if the judge considers that there is insufficient evidence, he shall discharge the accused

• 397 Cr.P.C

It states the power of courts to exercise revision

• 8(1) CVC act 2003

It talks about the powers and functions of the commission

ARGUMENTS FROM THE SIDE OF PLAINTIFF

The counsel of plaintiff made two submissions:

• The first argument made was that the order passed by the DoPT on 24/7/2017 should be set aside as the order passed was passed without the application of an independent mind, the counsel argued that the DoPT acted only by the dictation given by the CVC and hence DoPT wasn’t able to take the decision with an independent mind. The counsel took the reference of Mansukh Lal Vithaldas Chauhan v. State of Gujarat.
• The second submission raised by the appellant was the delay in granting of sanction was of a substantial period nearly 2 years, the CBI requested for sanction on 18/9/2015 and the sanction was subsequently granted on 24/7/2017 the delay according to the counsel is fatal, and the counsel asked the supreme court that the proceeding against the appellant be quashed. The reliance for this submission was taken from Vineet Narain & Ors. v. Union of India & Anr and Subramanian Swamy v. Manmohan Singh & Anr, in which the court laid down the timeframe of 3 months for granting sanction.

ARGUMENTS FROM THE SIDE OF DEFENDANTS

• The counsel for the defendant stated that the first submission by the appellant stated that the DoPT didn’t take the decision with independent mind is completely misleading as the DoPT only considered the report and findings by the CVC as a mere consideration, advise but it took the decision of granting the sanction for prosecution with its own independent mind. The correspondence between CVC, CBI and DoPT was showed to make his point.
• The second submission which stated that the delay should be a valid ground for quashing of a sanction countered by stating that the time period of 3 months is only for guidance it is not a rule or order and hence, not mandatory. And the cases mentioned above according to the judgement if a decision isn’t taken within the timeframe of 3 months it will automatically be considered a deemed sanction.

Judgement

The supreme court in this very complex issue discussed about 2 issue which were faced by the court:

• Is the sanction for prosecution be considered as illegal, if there is non-application of the mind, even if the authority is acting as per dictation?

1. The court referred to the document of the appellant the mansukhlal (supra) which was written in 1997, after which the Cr.P.C was amended and hence the court said the document “overlooks the march of law”.
2. The government with the purpose of assisting the sanctioning authority formed the CVC under the Home Ministry, subsequently in 2003 the parliament enacted the CVC act, the preamble of the CVC act states that it is formed with the purpose to “to inquire or cause inquiries to be conducted into offences alleged to have been committed under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.” the formation of CVC is also done to keep the integrity in the governance of the officers.
3. Hence the court in the current case stated that after examining the correspondence between CBI, CVC and DoPT, it can be seen that the DoPT in its order passed on 24/7/2017 is an independent decision.

• Is the delay in issuance of a sanction order be a reason for quashing a criminal proceeding?

1. The court after examining all the documents and data came to a conclusion that the period of 3 months and the extension of 1 month given for consultation in a mandatory timeframe and not just a guideline, the consequence for not following the same will bet that the authority will be held accountable and will be subject to judicial review.
2. The delay in granting of a sanction is not a valid reason for quashing a criminal proceeding
3. The delay is also not a valid reason to encroach right of the officer and grant deemed sanction.
4. The facts of this case were that there was delay in the proceedings but the appellant didn’t at any point question the legality of the delay either before the trail as well as high court, as the CBI was acting under the direction of an appointing authority there was no there was no response for the delay.
5. The court hence deciding this very important issue stated that it had to find a balance between quashing of the sanction and granting of deemed sanction. It ruled that upon the expiry of 3 months and the additional extension of 1 month the aggrieved party can approach the concerned authority with the help of writ court.
6. The court ordered the appellant to seek the remedy laid down by the court, and dismissed the criminal appeal.

Click here to download the original copy of the judgement

Learn the practical aspects of CrPC HERE, CPC HERE, IPC HERE, Evidence Act HERE, Family Laws HERE, DV Act HERE