Collector Cannot Cyclostyle Anti-Corruption Bureau's Draft To Sanction Prosecution, Must Apply Independent Mind: Rajasthan HC
Rajasthan High Court has reiterated that the grant of sanction for prosecution is not a mere formality and that a sanctioning authority is obligated to discharge its duty after having full knowledge of the material facts of the case.
The division bench of Justice Shree Chandrashekhar and Justice Rekha Borana further held that the sanction must be observed with complete strictness, keeping in mind the public interest and the protection available to the accused against whom the sanction is sought.
The Court was hearing a special appeal filed against the order of the Single judge wherein the sanction for prosecution granted by the Collector against the appellant was affirmed.
It was the case of the appellant that the sanctioning authority did not apply its independent mind in granting the sanction and just passed the order in a “cyclostyled manner”. It was submitted that the order passed by the Collector passing the prosecution sanction was verbatim copy of the draft submitted by the Anti-Corruption Bureau (“ACB”).
After hearing the contentions from both sides, the Court opined that grant of sanction was a condition precedent to the institution of prosecution against a public servant to act as a safeguard for innocent public servant against fraudulent, doubtful, frivolous and impolitic prosecution.
In this light, the Court opined that,
“the concerned sanctioning authority shall have to carefully peruse the entire relevant record and has to do complete and conscious scrutiny of the whole records so produced by the prosecution agency and independently applying his mind satisfy himself as to if facts and circumstances of the case and material evidences on record justify existence of a prima-facie case against the accused.”
The Court highlighted that the order of the Collector was verbatim copy of the draft prosecution furnished by the ACB and his order did not reflect any ground on the basis of which it could be concluded that the sanctioning authority applied his independent mind.
The Court referred to the case of Manish Mathur v State of Rajasthan in which on similar factual scenario, it was held that the ACB could have communicated all relevant facts on the basis of which the prosecution sanction could have been granted, but in no case, the Bureau could have instructed for grant of prosecution sanction under a proposed and drafted document.
In this background, the Court held that the proposed draft document for grant of prosecution furnished by the ACB to the Collector was illegal.
Accordingly, the appeal was allowed and the order of the Collector granting the prosecution sanction verbatim as the draft document sent by ACB was set aside.
Title: Hairsh Chandra Bunkar v Board of Revenue & Ors.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 349