VIJAY RAJMOHAN Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Leave Granted.

(2.) Two important questions of law arise for consideration in this appeal. The first question is whether an order of the Appointing Authority granting sanction for prosecution of a public servant under Sec. 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 [hereinafter referred to as 'the PC Act'.], would be rendered illegal on the ground of acting as per dictation if it consults the Central Vigilance Commission for its decision. The second question is whether the period of three months (extendable by one more month for legal consultation [As per the 2018 Amendment through the 2nd Proviso to Sec. 19(1) of the PC Act.]) for the Appointing Authority to decide upon a request for sanction is mandatory or not. The further question in this context, is whether the criminal proceedings can be quashed if the decision is not taken within the mandatory period.

(3.) The Appellant challenges the order of the High Court of Judicature at Madras [Criminal Revision Petition No. 349 of 2019 dtd. 6/1/2022.] allowing a criminal revision petition filed by the State against an order of the Trial Court [Criminal Misc. Petition No. 3908 of 2018 in C.C. No. 3 of 2018 dtd. 13/12/2018.], discharging the Appellant on the ground that the order of sanction under Sec. 19 of the PC Act, is vitiated due to non-application of mind by the sanctioning authority.