Quashing under Section 482 CrPC; held that sanction order was illegal as General Manager reviewed earlier refusal without additional material; dismissed cognizance and summon.
Application allowed; impugned order set-aside; further proceedings including cognizance and summon set aside.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
[ 1 ]
A.F.R .
Court No. - 10
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 107 of 2019
Applicant :- Sunil Agarwal And Ors. Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Cbi/Acb Lucknow Counsel for Applicant :- Purnendu Chakravarty,Anuuj Taandon Counsel for Opposite Party :- Bireshwar Nath
Hon'ble Dinesh Kumar Singh,J.
[ 2 ]
CBI gave no objection to the Court for accepting closure/final report as there was no sanction from the competent authority. In view of the no objection from the competent authority, the Court accepted the closure/final report vide order dated 06.09.2013. The sanction was refused by the then General Manager, Mr. M.V.V. Chalam, vide order dated 27.12.2012 on the basis of which no objection was given by the Deputy Inspector General of the CBI for accepting the final/closure report against the applicants.
"1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners as well as learned Additional Government Advocate and perused the record.
[ 3 ]
2. By means of this petition preferred under Section 482 Cr.P.C. the petitioners have prayed for quashing the impugned order dated 07.08.2018 passed by Special Judge, CBI (West), Lucknow in respect of the present applicants in Court Case No.199 of 2018, Crime No.RC:7(A)/2012 under Sections 120B, 420, 465 and 468 IPC and Section 13(2)/13(1)(d) Prevention of Corruption Act, Police Station CBI/ACB, Lucknow.. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that he would like to file an application for discharge under the provisions of Cr.P.C., to which learned counsel for the State, does not have any object.
4. Accordingly, the petitioners are granted liberty to file an application in conformity with the provisions of Cr.P.C., within a period of ten days from today. After the said application is filed, learned trial Court is directed to dispose of the same within a period of fifty days thereafter. The petitioners are also granted liberty to appear through his counsel. Till expiry of two months, no coercive steps shall be taken against them. Learned counsel for the petitioners would also be at liberty to enclose all documents including previous refusal of sanction, acceptance of the final report and no objection from the DIG, CBI for acceptance of the closure report. Learned Trial Court to take into account all these material and take appropriate action in accordance with law within two months.
5. With the aforesaid observations / directions, the petition stands disposed of. "
[ 4 ]
[ 5 ]
It has been further submitted that if there was no proper sanction, the learned trial Court could not have proceeded for taking cognizance and summoning the applicants. It is submitted that proceedings before the learned trial Court after fresh sanction order are totally without jurisdiction and are liable to be quashed.
[ 6 ]
11. It is now well established that a quasi-judicial authority cannot review its own order, unless the power of review is expressly conferred on it by the statute under which it derives its jurisdiction. The Vice-Chancellor in considering the question of approval of an order of dismissal of the Principal, acts as a quasi-judicial authority. It is not disputed that the provisions of the U.P. State Universities Act, 1973 or of the Statutes of the University do not confer any power of review on the Vice-Chancellor. In the circumstances, it must be held that the Vice-Chancellor acted wholly without jurisdiction in reviewing her order dated January 24, 1987 by her order dated March 3, 1987. The said order of the Vice-Chancellor dated March 3, 1987 was a nullity."
21. The Vigilance Department did not contend that the Hon'ble Minister did not have any jurisdiction. It accepted the said order. It was not challenged. Only when a new Government came in, a request was made for reconsideration of the earlier order, as would be evident from the memo of the Secretary of the Department.
[ 7 ]
22. It was, therefore, not a case where fresh materials were placed before the sanctioning authority. No case, therefore, was made out that the sanctioning authority had failed to take into consideration a relevant fact or took into consideration an irrelevant fact. If the clarification sought for by the Hon'ble Minister had been supplied, as has been contended before us, the same should have formed a ground for reconsideration of the order. It is stated before us that the Government sent nine letters for obtaining the clarifications which were not replied to.
13. In our opinion, a change of opinion per se on the same materials cannot be a ground for reviewing or reconsidering the earlier order refusing to grant sanction. However, in a case where fresh materials have been collected by the investigating agency subsequent to the earlier order and placed before the sanctioning authority and on that basis, the matter is reconsidered by the sanctioning authority and in light of the fresh materials an opinion is formed that sanction to prosecute the public servant may be granted, there may not be any impediment to adopt such course.
"14. Insofar as the present case is concerned, it is not even the case of the appellant that fresh materials were collected by the investigating agency and placed before the sanctioning authority for reconsideration and/or for review of the earlier order refusing to grant sanction. As a matter of fact, from the perusal of the subsequent Order dated 15-3-2008 it is clear that on the same materials, the sanctioning authority has changed its opinion and ordered sanction to prosecute the respondent which, in our opinion, is clearly impermissible.
15. By way of footnote, we may observe that the investigating agency might have had legitimate grievance about the Order dated 27.11.2007 refusing to grant sanction, and if that were so and no fresh materials were necessary, it ought to have challenged the order of the sanctioning authority but that was not done. The power of the sanctioning authority being not of continuing character could have been exercised only once on the same materials.
[ 8 ]
prosecution of the applicants, is wholly illegal and unsustainable. Since the sanction order itself is illegal, further proceedings in the case are also non-est. The trial Court had committed an error of law in not considering the fact that the subsequent order, granting sanction for prosecution of the applicants was not a valid and legal order.
Order Date :- 5.8.2022
MVS/-
Digitally signed by MANOJ VIKRAM SINGH CHAUHAN Date: 2022.08.08 18:28:45 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench
3 issues framed by the court
Whether an administrative authority can review its earlier order refusing sanction for prosecution without additional material placed before it?
Whether proceedings based on an illegal sanction order are jurisdictionally valid?
Whether to quash the order of cognizance and summon due to the absence of valid sanction?
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P.Referred¶22
[2009 (3) ADJ 322 (SC)]
State of Punjab & Anr. V. Mohammed Iqbal BhatiFollowed¶27
2010 AIR SCW 1186 · Who else cites this
State of Himachal Pradesh V. Nishant SareenApplied¶27
(2010) 14 SCC 527 · Who else cites this
Dr. Smt. Kuntesh Gupta V. Management of Hindu Kanya Mahavidyalaya, Sitapur (U.P.) and othersDistinguished¶31
AIR 1987 SC 2186 · Who else cites this
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Sunil Agarwal And Ors.
Dinesh Kumar Singh
Manoj Vikram Singh Chauhan
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
