[Prevention Of Corruption Act] Mere Typing Error In Designation Of Person Accused While Issuing Sanction Does Not Invalidate It: Kerala High Court
The Kerala High Court recently held that merely because there is a typographical error in showing the designation of the person accused in the sanction order to prosecute such person under Section 19(1)(b) of the Prevention of Corruption Act (P.C. Act), it cannot be said that the sanction order is bad. Justice Kauser Edappagath passed the above order and observed, "For the simple reason...
The Kerala High Court recently held that merely because there is a typographical error in showing the designation of the person accused in the sanction order to prosecute such person under Section 19(1)(b) of the Prevention of Corruption Act (P.C. Act), it cannot be said that the sanction order is bad.
Justice Kauser Edappagath passed the above order and observed,
"For the simple reason that there is a typographical error in showing the designation of the petitioner, it cannot be said that the sanction issued is bad. The question whether the sanctioning authority has applied his mind or not, is something which cannot be agitated in a writ petition".
The petitioner herein, who had been working as Inspector of Factories and Boilers at Thrissur, during the period from January 1, 2004 to February 28, 2015, allegedly amassed wealth to the tune of Rs.82,81,561/- which was disproportionate to his known source of income. He was accordingly charged with offences punishable under Sections 13 (2) r/w 13(1) of the P.C. Act. The Additional Secretary to the Government, Labour and Skills Department (4th respondent), had issued a sanction order to prosecute the petitioner invoking Section 19(1)(b) of the P.C Act.
The sanction order had wrongly stated the designation of the petitioner as 'Additional Director' in Factories and Boilers. The petitioner thus filed the present petition challenging the sanction order on the grounds of this error. It was also argued that the 4th respondent had not applied his mind while granting sanction.
The Court found that for the simple reason of a typographical error in the designation of the petitioner, the sanction order could not be held to be bad.
"The question whether the sanctioning authority has applied his mind or not, is something which cannot be agitated in a writ petition. If the petitioner has got a case that the sanctioning authority accorded sanction without applying his mind, the petitioner can very well cross-examine the sanctioning authority when he will be examined during trial," the Court held, while dismissing the writ petition.
The petitioner was represented by Advocate M.R. Sarin. Special Public Prosecutor for VACB A. Rajesh appeared on behalf of the respondents.
Case Title: K.Sasi v. State of Kerala rep. by Chief Secretary to the Govt & Ors.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 119