BRIJENDRA TIWARI Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) R. N. Misra, J. Heard Sri V. P. Srivastava, Senior Advocate, learned Counsel for the petitioners, learned A. G. A. for the State and perused the record.

(2.) SINCE these two writ petitions relate to same matter and contain same prayer, therefore, they are being disposed of together by a common order, which is being passed in Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 13409 of 2006.

(3.) AS is evident from both the F. I. Rs. and detailed report of C. B. C. I. D. submitted to the Government, a prima facie case under Sections 302, 330 and 201 I. P. C. was made out against the petitioners. Annexure- 1 shows that the Government accorded sanction for prosecution of the petitioners after giving a deep consideration to the facts available. Learned Counsel for the petitioners has argued that even from the report of C. B. C. I. D. , no case was made out against the petitioners and there is no evidence against them. He has further argued that the sanction has been granted without applying the mind. He has cited the case of State v. Dr. R. C. Anand and Anr. , 2004 (2) JIC 517 (SC) : 2004 (4) SCC 615 and Jaswant Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 1958 SC 124, in which it has been opined by Hon'ble Apex Court that while granting sanction for prosecution, the sanctioning authority must apply its mind and there must be sufficient materials for granting sanction. Annexure-1 is a very detailed order of sanction and contents thereof show that all the aspects of the case and material available on record were considered by the sanctioning authority. It shows the application of mind. Moreover, the legal position is very clear. In the case of R. Sundarrajan v. State of Tamilnadu, 2006 Supreme 323, the Hon'ble Apex Court has given a very clear opinion regarding sanction for prosecution. The Hon'ble Apex Court has said that the Court cannot look into the adequacy or inadequacy of material before the sanctioning authority and cannot sit as a Court of appeal over the sanction order. Relevant portion of said judgment is being quoted below : "we cannot look into the adequacy or inadequacy of the material before the sanctioning authority and we cannot sit as a Court of appeal over the sanction order. The order granting sanction shows that all the available materials were placed before the sanctioning authority, who considered the same at great details. Only because some of the said materials could not be proved, the same by itself, in our opinion, would not vitiate the order of sanction".