Sanction for corruption prosecution is administrative; no prior hearing or departmental exoneration bars valid approval.
Sanction for prosecution under the Prevention of Corruption Act is an administrative decision requiring the competent authority to apply its mind to the investigative material and form a prima facie view on whether offences are disclosed. It does not give the proposed accused a right to a pre-decisional hearing, and the absence of such hearing does not invalidate the sanction. Exoneration in departmental proceedings is not determinative of the criminal issue and does not bar or vitiate sanction where the investigation material supports prosecution. The order quashing sanction was set aside and the prosecution was allowed to proceed to trial.
Issues: (i) Whether grant of sanction for prosecution under the Prevention of Corruption Act was an administrative function not requiring prior hearing to the accused. (ii) Whether exoneration in departmental proceedings barred or materially affected grant of sanction for criminal prosecution.
Issue (i): Whether grant of sanction for prosecution under the Prevention of Corruption Act was an administrative function not requiring prior hearing to the accused.
Analysis: Sanction was based on the investigative material placed before the competent authority. The authority was required to apply its mind to the collected facts and form a prima facie satisfaction whether they disclosed offences warranting prosecution. Since the act of granting or refusing sanction was administrative in character, it did not attract a right of pre-decisional hearing or the full application of the principles of natural justice to the proposed accused.
Conclusion: The sanction could not be invalidated on the ground that no opportunity of hearing was given before it was accorded.
Issue (ii): Whether exoneration in departmental proceedings barred or materially affected grant of sanction for criminal prosecution.
Analysis: The relevant consideration at the stage of sanction was whether the facts collected during investigation disclosed the commission of the offences for which sanction was sought. A finding in departmental proceedings was not ative of the criminal question and did not control the statutory decision to grant sanction for prosecution.
Conclusion: Departmental exoneration was irrelevant and did not vitiate the sanction.
Final Conclusion: The order quashing sanction was set aside and the prosecution was permitted to proceed to trial expeditiously.
Ratio Decidendi: Sanction for prosecution is an administrative decision based on application of mind to the investigative material, and neither prior hearing to the accused nor departmental exoneration is a necessary condition for its validity.
TaxTMI 
AI Drafter ✕
TaxTMI 
