1995 (8) TMI 334 - SC - Indian Laws

Sanction for Prosecution under Prevention of Corruption Act: Administrative Process, No Hearing Required

Superintendent Of Police Versus Deepak Chowdhary & Ors

The Supreme Court held that the grant of sanction for prosecution under the Prevention of Corruption Act is an administrative function. The authority must ... - Issues involved: Sanction for prosecution u/s 6(1-c) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 and violation of principles of natural justice.For the issue of sanction for prosecution, the Supreme Court held that the grant of sanction is an administrative function and not a quasi-judicial one. The investigating officer must present all necessary material to the sanctioning authority, which must then consider the material to decide whether to grant or refuse sanction. The authority must be satisfied that the relevant facts constitute the offence before granting sanction. Therefore, the Court found that providing an opportunity of hearing to the accused before granting sanction is not required. The High Court's decision to quash the sanction on the grounds of violation of natural justice was deemed erroneous.Regarding the second issue of violation of natural justice due to departmental exoneration, the Court emphasized that the key consideration is whether the facts collected during the investigation establish the offence for which sanction is sought. The Court stated that the departmental exoneration by the disciplinary authority is not relevant to the decision on granting sanction for prosecution.The Court refrained from delving into the merits of the respondent's culpability at that stage, emphasizing the importance of fairness to the accused. The appeal was allowed, the High Court's order was set aside, and the trial court was directed to proceed with the trial against the respondent promptly. If the trial of other accused has concluded, the trial of the respondent should be expedited, not exceeding one year.