PRADEEP CHAUDHARY Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of this petition, under Sec. 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure (in short, 'CrPC'), the petitioner is seeking quashment of the charge-sheet No.81/2022 dtd. 10/9/2022 whereby he has been implicated in criminal proceeding under Sec. 13(1)(e) and 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for brevity, 'PC Act') read with Sec. 120-B of the Indian Penal Code on the ground that the sanction for prosecution order dtd. 21/3/2022 was issued by incompetent authority i.e. Joint Director, whose post was equivalent to the petitioner and there was no material on record that the competent authority of the petitioner i.e. Managing Director, had applied its mind for grant of sanction and further, the petitioner is also assailing the order dtd. 29/11/2023 whereby the Court below has rejected his application under Sec. 227 of the CrPC for discharge of consequential order of framing of charges under Sec. 13(1) (e) and 13(2) of the PC Act read with Sec. 120-B of the IPC.

(2.) Shorn of unnecessary details, the facts germane to the institution of the present criminal case is as under :-

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner succinctly submits that insofar as Sec. 19 of the PC Act, 1988 is concerned, it categorically postulates that no Court shall take cognizance of offence punishable under Sec. referred to therein committed by public servant except with the previous sanction of the authority competent to remove him from his office and in the present case, as referred to above and is explicit from the document Annexure A/1, it is the Managing Director who alone could have granted sanction for prosecution. It is also submitted that Joint Director is a class-I post likewise present petitioner, therefore, the sanction granted by him would amount to the sanction granted by the incompetent authority. It is further submitted that the word 'removal' carries a great significance inasmuch as it results in cessation of inter-relation between the office and abuse by the holder of the office. The link between the power with opportunity to abuse and the holder of office would be severed by removal from office and also in the catena of decisions rendered by Apex Court, it has been held that the authority entitled to grant sanction must apply its mind to the facts of the case, evidence collected and other incidental facts before according the sanction. More appropriately, a grant of sanction is not an idle formality but solemn and sacrosanct act which removes the umbrella of protection of government servants against frivolous prosecutions and must be strictly complied with before any prosecution could be launched against public servant.