Prosecution Of Public Servant For Corruption Involves Public Interest, Delayed Sanction Doesn't Automatically Invalidate Proceedings: Jharkhand HC

The First Information Report (FIR) in this case was filed on October 30, 2017. However, the sanction order for prosecution was issued on November 26, 2020, resulting in a significant delay of almost three years. However, the court opined that the Chairman-cum-Managing Director thoroughly reviewed all the facts and only then concluded that it was necessary to prosecute the petitioner.

Justice Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi observed, “Even for non-compliance with a mandatory period cannot and should not automatically lead to the quashing of criminal proceedings because the prosecution of a public servant for corruption has an element of public interest having a direct bearing on the rule of law. This is also a non-sequitur. The court is required to keep in mind that the complainant or victim has no other remedy available for judicial redressal if the criminal proceedings stand automatically quashed.”

“At the same time, a decision to grant deemed sanction may cause prejudice to the rights of the accused as there would also be nonapplication of mind in such cases. In view of the above, it is in between these competing interests that the Court must maintain the delicate balance. While arriving at this balance, the Court must keep in mind the duty cast on the competent authority to grant sanction within the stipulated period of time. There must be a consequence of dereliction of duty to giving sanction within the time specified,” Justice Dwivedi added.

The petition filed by Mandal challenged the sanction order issued against him under Section 19 (i)(c) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

According to the FIR, Mandal, while serving as a Senior Manager in the Metallurgical Wing of MECON Ltd., was accused of engaging in a criminal conspiracy with two companies: M/s Zeal India Chemicals located at Keshari Complex, Upper Bazaar, Ranchi, and M/s Shiv Machine Tools located at Armenian Street, Chennai. It was alleged that Mandal accepted illegal gratification totaling approximately Rs 1,65,45,000/- through various banking transactions facilitated by these firms.

The FIR further claimed that Mandal received these funds in different accounts, either under his name or under the names of his relatives and friends. He was also responsible for evaluating the technical bids submitted by these companies in various tenders and also worked as the Project Coordinator for MECON in the projects awarded to these firms. Mandal was entrusted with passing the designs and drawings submitted by these companies during the project execution.

Taking a look into the cognizance order dated 28.11.2020, the Court observed that the court by elaborate order had taken cognizance, and had disclosed in the said order what materials were found in the investigation against the petitioner and thereafter had taken the cognizance.

In the order taking cognizance, the Court observed that it was reflected that the Proprietor of M/s Zeal India Chemicals, Ranchi and Proprietor of M/s Shiv Machine Tools, Chennai had participated and gotten selected and during the same the petitioner was prepared the technical specification and tender appraisal report of the said project after receipt of the bids from the above said firms and he passed the drawing and design of machines submitted by both the firms.

However, the Court further observed that the above said firms were not eligible for the said work, but they got selected by undue advantage extended by this petitioner to these firms being a public servant and in lieu of that the above said firms transferred the alleged illegal gratifications through the RTGS on different dates through different Bank accounts existing with the SBI, Bank of India, UBI, Axis Bank into the account of this petitioner and the names of other beneficiaries have also been disclosed in the order taking cognizance.

Thus, the court found that the cognizance order was well reasoned and there was no illegality in the said order.

Looking into the sanction order dated 26.11.2020, the Court observed “Looking into the sanction order dated 26.11.2020, it appears that the materials, which were found, were placed before the Chairmancum-Managing Director of the MECON Ltd. for taking the sanction and thereafter the said order has been passed. In the order of granting sanction, the Chairman-cum-Managing Director, has discussed entire facts and has come to the conclusion that there is need of prosecution of the petitioner and that’s why the sanction order has been passed.”

The Court opined, Further, this is not the case of the petitioner that the person, who has passed the sanction order, was not the competent authority, it is the duty of the courts to see that the perpetrators of crime are punished, if offence against them are proved and the accused would get the sufficient opportunities to prove his innocence during the trial.”

“The competent authority is only required to consider whether materials placed by complainant or investigating agency prime facie discloses commission of an offence and a detailed inquiry is not required at the time of passing the order for sanction of prosecution under the Prevention of Corruption Act. Thus, the court finds that the order granting sanction for prosecution is in accordance with law,” the Court added.

Declining the argument put forward by the counsel appearing for the petitioner that the order of sanction was not in accordance with law and was passed belatedly, the Court said that the Chairman-cum-Managing Director of the MECON Ltd. had passed the sanction order well within time.

In view of the above facts, reasons and analysis, the court opined that no case of interference was made out, and accordingly, the petition was dismissed.

Counsel/s For the Resp. Nos. 1 & 5 : Mr. Anil Kumar, A.S.G.I. : Ms Chandana Kumari, A.C. to A.S.G.I.

Counsel/s For the Resp. No. 2 : Mr. Amitabh, Advocate.

Counsel/s For the Resp. Nos. 3 & 4 : Mr. Anmol Deepak, Advocate.

Counsel/s For the Petitioner : Mr. Neel Kamal, Advocate. : Mr. Satish Kumar Keshri, Advocate.

LL Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Jha) 79

Case Title: Upendra Nath Mandal vs. The Union of India & Ors.

Case No.: W.P.(Cr.) No. 04 of 2023

Click Here To Read / Download Judgement