Independent application of mind is essential for valid prosecution sanction; mechanically issued sanction was quashed without remand.

Prosecution sanction must reflect the sanctioning authority's independent application of mind to the material before it; a sanction order issued mechanically on the basis of a draft, without considering the investigation report, is invalid. The HC found that the authority merely filled in the draft supplied by the ACB and ignored the relevant record, showing complete non-application of mind. Given the lapse of time, the petitioner's superannuation, and the limited allegations, the Court held that a fresh sanction exercise would serve no useful purpose and quashed the sanction without remand.

---

---

Issues: Whether the prosecution sanction granted against the petitioner was liable to be quashed for want of independent application of mind, and whether remand for fresh sanction was warranted.

Analysis: The sanctioning authority is required to consider the material placed before it and exercise its own discretion independently. A sanction order passed mechanically on the basis of a draft, without dealing with the investigation report or applying an independent mind, is invalid. In the present case, the sanctioning authority merely filled in the draft sent by the ACB and ignored the relevant material, showing complete non-application of mind. The Court also took note of the lapse of time, the petitioner's superannuation, and the limited nature of the allegations, concluding that a fresh round of sanction proceedings would serve no useful purpose.

Conclusion: The prosecution sanction was quashed, and the proceedings against the petitioner were closed without remand for fresh consideration.

---