2009 (7) TMI 1318 - SC - Indian Laws

State's Power to Review Sanction under CrPC Section 197 Upheld; Proper Application of Mind Emphasized

State of Punjab & Anr. Versus Mohammed Iqbal Bhatti

The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision regarding the power of the State to review the grant of sanction under Section 197 of the Code of ... - Issues involved: The issue involves the power of the State to review the grant of sanction under Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.Summary:Issue 1: Power of State to Review Sanction Grant The respondent, a public servant, faced a First Information Report under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Initially, sanction to prosecute was refused, but later granted. The High Court opined that the State had no power of review and had exhausted its jurisdiction. The State argued that as an administrative matter, it could review its decision. The Supreme Court clarified that while the State's power is statutory, it can re-exercise its jurisdiction without needing express review powers. However, the authority must apply its mind and consider all relevant material before granting or refusing sanction.Issue 2: Jurisdiction of Sanctioning Authority The Supreme Court highlighted that the authority granting sanction must apply its mind to the material facts and evidence collected during the investigation. The order must not be based on irrelevant facts or extraneous considerations. Judicial review is possible for orders refusing or granting sanction. The source of the authority's power and the necessity of serious consideration before passing such orders were emphasized.Issue 3: Procedure for Granting Sanction The Court examined the procedural aspects of granting sanction, emphasizing the importance of proper consideration and application of mind by the sanctioning authority. It was noted that the concerned authority cannot pass an order subject to higher authority's ratification. The case highlighted the significance of timely decisions and the need for clear communication between departments involved in the sanction process.Separate Judgement: The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, finding no merit in challenging the High Court's decision. It was concluded that no fresh material was presented for reconsideration, and the necessity for review was not adequately demonstrated. The lack of new grounds or reasons for the re-examination of the earlier order led to the dismissal of the appeal.Conclusion: In conclusion, the Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision, emphasizing the importance of proper application of mind and consideration of all relevant factors in granting or refusing sanction. The appeal was dismissed, and no costs were awarded in the case.