[S. 19 PC Act] No Sanction Needed To Prosecute Public Servant If CBI Probed Case Upon Constitutional Court's Order: Allahabad HC

The Allahabad High Court has held that when a Constitutional Court entrusts an investigation in a case to CBI and the role of a public servant emerges as an accused for committing such an offence, no prior sanction under Section 19 PC Act would be required for prosecuting such a public servant.

In other words, the bench of Justice Dinesh Kumar Singh has observed that if the CBI has probed a matter upon a direction of the High Court or Supreme Court, and has filed a charge sheet against a government/public servant, then there is no requirement to obtain sanction under Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act from the competent authority for prosecuting such a government/public servant (serving or retired).

"If the sanction for prosecution of a public servant is mandated where the investigation of the crime has been handed over to the CBI on the order of the Constitutional Court, it may result in a futile exercise as such a State Government which has withdrawn the consent under Section 6 of DSPE Act may not accord sanction for prosecution of a public servant," the bench further observed.

The bench observed thus while dealing with a quashing plea filed by one Dr. Syed Fareed Haider Rizvi (a retired govt employee), who moved the Court challenging the order of the trial court taking cognizance of the charge sheet filed by CBI against him in an MGNREGA Scam case and issuing non-bailable warrants of arrest against him.

The case in brief

Essentially, pursuant to a 2014 order of the Allahabad HC, the CBI registered a regular case in respect of gross irregularities, large-scale bungling, and misappropriation of government funds relating to the MGNREGA Scheme during the years 2007- 2008 and 2008-2009.

It was the argument of the counsel for the accused that since no sanction had been taken for prosecuting him in this case, therefore, the impugned proceedings were liable to be set aside.

High Court's observations

At the outset, the Court observed that the CBI can investigate an offence either with the consent of the State Government (as mandated under Section 6 of The Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946) or upon a direction from Constitutional Courts as the power of the HC or SC are not fettered by statutory restrictions of the DSPE Act.

Further, the Court noted that in the recent past, several States have withdrawn general consent under Section 6 DSPE Act for the investigation of an offence by the CBI, however, it added that despite such withdrawal of consent, the Constitutional Courts can still entrust the investigation into a case in such States if it finds that the impartial and fair investigation had been doubted in the hands of the State Police.

Against this backdrop, the Court observed that it may happen that a Constitutional Court orders CBI to investigate an offence in a state which has withdrawn its general consent, and if in case the name of a public servant emerges as an accused, the State refuses to grant sanction under Section 19 of the PC Act and therefore, it would become a futile exercise to seek sanction from the state government.

Consequently, the Court went ahead to hold that where the investigation of an offence has been entrusted to the CBI pursuant to the order passed by the Constitutional Court and the role of a public servant comes as an accused for committing such an offence, no prior sanction under Section 19 PC Act would be required for prosecuting such a public servant.

With this, the plea was dismissed and the applicant was granted four days time to surrender and apply for regular bail.

Case title - Dr. Syed Fareed Haider Rizvi @ Dr. S.F.H. Rizvi v. C.B.I. Thru. S.P./A.C.B. Lko [APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 8292 of 2018]

Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 511

Click Here To Read/Download Order