TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2011 (11) TMI 842
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Sections 13(1)(d) and 13(1)(a) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short, "P.C. Act"). 3. On November 4, 2009, the sanctioning authority granted sanction to prosecute the Appellant for the offences indicated above. After the sanction order was challenged by the Appellant in the High Court on November 26, 2009, the charge-sheet has been filed by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) -Respondent No. 2- against the Appellant on November 30, 2009 in the Court of Special Judge, Ernakulam. Following that, summons came to be issued to the Appellant on December 18, 2009. During the pendency of the matter before the High Court, wherein the sanction order has been challenged by the Appellant, the Court of Special Judge has taken cog....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... merits of the challenge to sanction order. According to learned Counsel, on its face, the sanction order suffers from non-application of mind. 8. On the other hand, Mr. H.P. Raval, learned Additional Solicitor General for the Central Bureau of Investigation - Respondent No. 2- supported the view of the Division Bench. He submitted that in a case where validity of the sanction order is sought to be challenged on the ground of non-application of mind, such challenge can only be made in the course of trial. In this regard, he heavily relied upon a decision of this Court in Parkash Singh Badal and Anr. v. State of Punjab and Ors. (2007) 1 SCC 1. He also relied upon a recent decision of this Court in Ashok Tshering Bhutia v. State of Sikkim ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e instant case related to the offences relatable to the Act. There is a distinction between the absence of sanction and the alleged invalidity on account of non-application of mind. The former question can be agitated at the threshold but the latter is a question which has to be raised during trial. 11. While drawing a distinction between the absence of sanction and invalidity of the sanction, this Court in Parkash Singh Badal (2007) 1 SCC 1 expressed in no uncertain terms that the absence of sanction could be raised at the inception and threshold by an aggrieved person. However, where sanction order exists, but its legality and validity is put in question, such issue has to be raised in the course of trial. of course, in Parkash Singh B....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... situation of the case wherein the High Court reversed the judgment of the conviction of the accused on the ground of invalidity of sanction order, with reference to the case of Parkash Singh Badal (2007) 1 SCC 1, this Court stated in Ameerjan (2007) 11 SCC 273 in para 17 of the Report as follows: 17. Parkash Singh Badal, therefore, is not an authority for the proposition that even when an order of sanction is held to be wholly invalid inter alia on the premise that the order is a nullity having been suffering from the vice of total non-application of mind. We, therefore, are of the opinion that the said decision cannot be said to have any application in the instant case. 13. In our view, having regard to the facts of the presen....