Prior sanction and reasoned sanction order are mandatory before prosecuting public servants for official-duty offences; proceedings quashed.

Previous sanction is a mandatory condition precedent before prosecuting a public servant for acts allegedly committed while acting or purporting to act in discharge of official duty, and the relevant date is when the offence was allegedly committed, not later retirement. On that basis, prosecution of the retired public servant was unsustainable without prior sanction and was liable to be quashed. A sanction order must also show application of mind to the investigation materials and subjective satisfaction; a silent or unreasoned order is defective. As the sanction for the other public servant was improper and the continuation of proceedings would be futile and oppressive, the criminal case against both accused was quashed.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether prosecution of a public servant for offences allegedly committed while in service could continue without previous sanction under Section 15A of the Essential Commodities Act; (ii) whether the sanction order granted for prosecuting the other public servant was sustainable and whether the proceedings were liable to be quashed as an abuse of process.

Issue (i): whether prosecution of a public servant for offences allegedly committed while in service could continue without previous sanction under Section 15A of the Essential Commodities Act

Analysis: The statutory protection under Section 15A applies where the alleged offence was committed by a public servant while acting or purporting to act in discharge of duty. The relevant date is the time of commission of the offence, not the later retirement of the accused. If the accused was in service when the offence allegedly occurred, cognizance cannot be taken without the requisite previous sanction. The absence of such sanction vitiates the prosecution.

Conclusion: The prosecution against the retired public servant was not maintainable in the absence of prior sanction and was liable to be quashed.

Issue (ii): whether the sanction order granted for prosecuting the other public servant was sustainable and whether the proceedings were liable to be quashed as an abuse of process

Analysis: Sanction for prosecution is not an empty formality. The authority must apply its mind to the materials collected in the investigation and the order must reflect that consideration through reasons showing subjective satisfaction. A sanction order that is silent on the relevant materials and reasoning is defective. In addition, the materials placed before the Court showed that the authorities had decided not to proceed against the petitioners, which reinforced the conclusion that the continuation of the prosecution would be futile and oppressive.

Conclusion: The sanction order was held to be improper and the continued proceedings were found to be an abuse of process.

Final Conclusion: The criminal proceedings against both petitioners were quashed in exercise of inherent jurisdiction because the prosecution was unsustainable for want of proper sanction and continuation of the case would serve no useful purpose.

Ratio Decidendi: Previous sanction is a mandatory condition precedent for prosecuting a public servant for acts alleged to have been done in discharge of official duty, and a prosecution founded on a sanction order that does not show application of mind to the relevant materials is liable to be quashed.

---