# Dr. Abhai Ranjan v. State of U.P. & Anr

- **Citation:** (2022) 1 ILRA 262
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2021-12-10
- **Case number:** Application U/S 482 No. 18671 of 2021
- **Bench:** Rahul Chaturvedi
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/dr-abhai-ranjan-v-state-of-u-p-anr-47656
- **Pages:** 13

## Headnote

(A) Criminal Law - The Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 - Section 482 - Inherent
power - The Prevention of Corruption Act,
1988 - Section 7/13(1)(d) r/w Section
13(2) - Section 19 - Previous sanction
necessary for prosecution - difference
between absence of sanction and validity
of sanction - issue regarding absence of
sanction can be raised at the inception by
the aggrieved person - where the sanction
order exists, the issue regarding its
validity has to be raised only during
course of trial - a mere error, omission or
irregularity in sanction is not considered
to be fatal unless it has resulted in the
''failure of justice' or has been occasioned
thereby.(Para - 26,27)

(B) Criminal Law - The Prevention of
Corruption Act, 1988 - Section 19(3) -
specific embargo for granting any stay
order on the ground of any error, omission
or irregularity in the sanction granted by
the authority, unless it has resulted into
failure of justice - Section 4(4) - Act has
given a time bound period to conclude the
trial of the case within a period of two
years (four years maximum).(Para -32,33)
Quashing of summoning order , impugned
charge-sheet and entire proceeding - trap
organized against applicant (Mining Inspector) -
demanded a bribe - to issue challan to the
complainant - enable him to complete his work -
trap successful - F.I.R. lodged by AntiCorruption - applicant caught red handed -
Prevention of Corruption Act initiated against
him - statements u/s 161 Cr.P.C. of various
witnesses and collecting all the relevant
material/ documents - charge-sheet - report u/s
173(2) Cr.P.C. filed without any requisite
sanction
and
pending
before
the
State
Government - cognizance taken by magistrate
.(Para - 1 to 4)

HELD:-Applicant failed to bring on record even
a single instance regarding "failure of justice".
Not a case of absence of sanction, but in this
case sanction has been granted. Authenticity or
validity of this sanction could be adjudged either
by the Division Bench in writ petition or at the
stage of the trial, but there could not be any
good reason to stall the proceedings of the case
or vitiate the cognizance order in absence of
any material on record which may result into
"failure of justice" to the applicant . Provisions
of Section 4 (4) of the Prevention of Corruption
Act has to be kept in mind and suitable
endeavour has to be made by the trial court to
conclude the trial within the time specified
therein.(Para - 33,35)

Application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. dismissed. (E-7)

List of Cases cited:-

## Text

_Characters 0–39,878 of 44,012. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39878 for what follows._

262 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
----------
(2022)01ILR A262
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 10.12.2021

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE RAHUL CHATURVEDI, J.

Application U/S 482 No. 18671 of 2021

Dr. Abhai Ranjan ...Applicant
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Applicant:
Sri Atharva Dixit, Sri Syed Imran Ibrahim,
Sri Manish Tiwary (Sr. Advocate)

Counsel for the Opposite Parties:
G.A.

(A) Criminal Law - The Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 - Section 482 - Inherent
power - The Prevention of Corruption Act,
1988 - Section 7/13(1)(d) r/w Section
13(2) - Section 19 - Previous sanction
necessary for prosecution - difference
between absence of sanction and validity
of sanction - issue regarding absence of
sanction can be raised at the inception by
the aggrieved person - where the sanction
order exists, the issue regarding its
validity has to be raised only during
course of trial - a mere error, omission or
irregularity in sanction is not considered
to be fatal unless it has resulted in the
''failure of justice' or has been occasioned
thereby.(Para - 26,27)

(B) Criminal Law - The Prevention of
Corruption Act, 1988 - Section 19(3) -
specific embargo for granting any stay
order on the ground of any error, omission
or irregularity in the sanction granted by
the authority, unless it has resulted into
failure of justice - Section 4(4) - Act has
given a time bound period to conclude the
trial of the case within a period of two
years (four years maximum).(Para -32,33)
Quashing of summoning order , impugned
charge-sheet and entire proceeding - trap
organized against applicant (Mining Inspector) -
demanded a bribe - to issue challan to the
complainant - enable him to complete his work -
trap successful - F.I.R. lodged by AntiCorruption - applicant caught red handed -
Prevention of Corruption Act initiated against
him - statements u/s 161 Cr.P.C. of various
witnesses and collecting all the relevant
material/ documents - charge-sheet - report u/s
173(2) Cr.P.C. filed without any requisite
sanction
and
pending
before
the
State
Government - cognizance taken by magistrate
.(Para - 1 to 4)

HELD:-Applicant failed to bring on record even
a single instance regarding "failure of justice".
Not a case of absence of sanction, but in this
case sanction has been granted. Authenticity or
validity of this sanction could be adjudged either
by the Division Bench in writ petition or at the
stage of the trial, but there could not be any
good reason to stall the proceedings of the case
or vitiate the cognizance order in absence of
any material on record which may result into
"failure of justice" to the applicant . Provisions
of Section 4 (4) of the Prevention of Corruption
Act has to be kept in mind and suitable
endeavour has to be made by the trial court to
conclude the trial within the time specified
therein.(Para - 33,35)

Application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. dismissed. (E-7)

List of Cases cited:-

1. Nanjappa Vs St. of Karn., AIR 2015 SC 3060

2. Vijay Kumar Janjua Vs St. of Punj. & anr. ,
CWP No.10055 of 2010 decided on 24.01.2014

3. Dinesh Kumar Vs Chairman, Airport Authority
of India & anr., (2011) 4 SCC 402

4. Prakash Singh Badal & anr. Vs St. of Punj. &
ors., (2007) 1 SCC

5. C.B.I. Vs Ashok Kumar Aggarwal, (2015) 1
SCC (Cri) 344

6. Town Investments Ltd. Vs Deptt. of
Environment, (1977) 1 All ER 813.
1 All. Dr. Abhai Ranjan Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
263
7. Girish Kumar Suneja Vs C.B.I. , Criminal
Appeal No.1137 of 2017 decided on 13.7.2017

8. St. of Bihar Vs Rajmangal Ram, AIR 2014 SC
1674

9. St. of Mah. Vs Mahesh G. Jain, (2014) 1 SCC
(Cri) 515

(Delivered by Hon'ble Rahul Chaturvedi, J.)

1. Heard Shri Manish Tiwary, learned
Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Syed Imran
Ibrahim, learned counsel for the applicant and
Shri Nishant Singh as well as Mr. Faraz Kazmi,
learned counsels appeared for the State. Perused
the record.

2. Since only legal point is involved in
this case, as such the present application u/s 482
Cr.P.C. is being decided at the threshold stage
itself without inviting any counter affidavit.

3. Raising an interesting law point,
learned counsel for the applicant has tried to
exploit the plenary powers of this Court u/s 482
Cr.P.C. with a prayer "to allow the instant 482
application quashing the summoning order
dated 08.4.2021 as well as impugned chargesheet dated 27.11.2014 and the entire
proceeding of Special Case No.12 of 2014
(State vs Dr. Abhai Ranjan), arising out of Case
Crime no.455 of 2014, u/s 7/13(1)(d) r/w
Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption
Act, P.S.-Mundha Pandey, District Moradabad,
pending before Special Judge (Prevention of
Corruption Act), Court No.2, Bareilly" and
pending final disposal of the instant 482
application stay further proceeding of the above
mentioned case.

4. Before critically analyzing the legal
controversy involve in the instant case, it is
desirable to spell out the brief factual
aspects of the matter touching the core
issue :-

FACTS OF THE CASE

(A) On behalf of complainant,
Muddasir Khan a trap was organized
against the applicant, posted as Mining
Inspector, who allegedly has demanded a
bribe of Rs.25,000/- in order to issue
challan to the complainant so as to enable
him to complete his work. After the trap
was successful, the F.I.R. was lodged by
one Ms. Pragya Mishra, Dy. S.P. (AntiCorruption), Moradabad on 30.9.2014 at
23.45 hours in the night, making a mention
that the applicant was caught red handed
with 10 x Rs.1000 notes and 30 x Rs.500
notes while taking illegal gratification, as
such, proceedings under the Prevention of
Corruption Act was initiated against him.

It is relevant to make a mention
to the effect that the alleged complaint was
made by Mr. Muddasir Khan on 26.9.2014,
pursuant to that the aforesaid trap was laid
after making a pre-trap enquiry by one Mr.
S.N. Tyagi, who has given his report on the
same day i.e. 26.9.2014 and the said report
was transmitted to D.S.P. on the same date.

(B) After holding an in-depth
probe into the matter, recording the
statements u/s 161 Cr.P.C. of various
witnesses and collecting all the relevant
material/ documents and after thrashing it
on the anvil of thorough investigation, the
Investigating Officer of the case has
submitted charge-sheet No.5 of 2014 u/s
7/13(1)(d) r/w Section 13(2) of Prevention
of Corruption Act against the applicant on
27.11.2014.

(C)
The
applicant
was
languishing in jail in connection with above
case and he was released on bail by Coordinate Bench of this Court on 31.3.2015
264 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
having
Crl.
Misc.
Bail
Application
No.1572 of 2015.
(D) After the preparation of report u/s
173(2) Cr.P.C. the same was filed without
any requisite sanction and the request for
the same was pending before the State
Government.

5. On these factual aspects of the
issue, it was urged by learned counsel for
the applicant that as per the provision of
Government Order dated 24.12.1992 the
proceedings against the Gazetted Officers
under Group-B cannot be initiated by Anti
Corruption Department. Since the applicant
is a Mining Officer and not Mining
Inspector, and as such, entire proceeding
initiated
against
him
goes
hay-wire.
Besides this, many other factual drawbacks
were pointed out by the applicant in his
petition while assailing the charge-sheet as
well as cognizance order.

6. It is also submitted by learned
counsel for the applicant that the applicant
being an upright officer has taken number
of administrative steps to curb the illegal
mining in discharge of official duty, many
dumpers and tractors were seized by him,
which has caused cramps to various mining
mafias including the complainant. In fact
the applicant is now become victim of their
nefarious design.

7. Reverting back to the earlier story,
that the police after holding in-depth probe
into the matter, has submitted charge-sheet
on 27.11.2014 u/s 7/13(1)(d) r/w Section
13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act,
1988. The police authorities on 21.11.2014
and 02.12.2014 wrote letters to the
Government
of
U.P.
to
accord
permission/sanction so as to initiate a
criminal prosecution against the applicant,
but the same was refused by the Under
Secretary, Govt. of U.P. vide letter dated
9.3.2015
(Annexure-21).
The
officer
concerned has pointed out certain vital
fallacies and pitfalls in the case-diary and
documents collected during investigation,
on
which,
according
to
the
Under
Secretary, the possibility of successful
prosecution against the applicant is too
bleak, and as such, sanction was declined at
that juncture i.e. on 9.3.2015.

8. On 01.10.2015, the police official
reviewed the entire material once again and
thereafter sent yet another letter to accord
sanction to prosecute the applicant under
above mentioned allegations of corruption.
This time too the sanction was turned down
by the then Principal Secretary, Department
of Mining, Government of U.P., relying
upon the earlier order dated 9.3.2015, but
this time there was simplicitor refusal
without having any observation with regard
to sufficiency or insufficiency of the
material collected by the Investigating
Officer during investigation vide its order
dated 21.9.2016 (Annexure-23).

On this, it was urged by the
learned counsel for the applicant that after
turning down the sanction twice, makes it
crystal clear that sanctioning authorities did
not find anything incriminating against the
applicant, upon which the sanction could be
accorded and this by itself casts serious
doubts over the prosecution story and the
alleged material collected in support
thereof.

9. It is further submitted by learned
counsel for the applicant that the S.P., AntiCorruption Organization, Lucknow for the
third time sought sanction to prosecute the
applicant by making a mention that the
applicant was caught red handed while
taking a bribe of Rs.25,000/- in front of
1 All. Dr. Abhai Ranjan Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
265
independent witnesses. The S.P. concerned
requested
the
senior
administrative
authorities to accord sanction as there is
sufficient
and
confidence
generating
material collected by the Investigating
Officer to launch successful prosecution
against the applicant.

10. On this, Shri Manish Tiwary,
learned Senior Counsel urged that during
this period, there was change in the
government and consequently on 22.6.2017
(Annexure-25)
the
Additional
Chief
Secretary, Govt. of U.P., Lucknow has
accorded permission to initiate the criminal
case
against
the
applicant
without
collecting any new material on record.

11. At the same juncture, it was
pointed out by the learned A.G.A. that the
applicant has already invoked the writ
jurisdiction of this Court by filing Crl.
Misc. Writ Petition No.5877 of 2021 in re :
Abhai Ranjan vs State of U.P. The prayer
sought in the above mentioned writ petition
is as follows :

"issue, writ, order, direction in
the nature of certiorari quashing the order
dated 22.6.2017 (Annexure-25 to the writ
petition), passed by Additional Chief
Secretary bearing number 677/86-2017172/2014 arising out of Case Crime
No.455 of 2014 under Section 7/13(1)(d)
r/w Section 13(2) of P.C. Act, P.S.-
Mundha Pandey, Moradabad."

On this writ petition the Division
Bench of this Court vide its order dated
20.9.2021 had sought counter affidavit
from the Secretary, Government of U.P.,
Lucknow within ten days and rejoinder
affidavit within a week thereafter, fixing
06.10.2021 as the next in the matter. The
aforesaid writ petition is still pending,
waiting for its final adjudication.

12. Thus, order dated 22.6.2017
whereby sanction was accorded on the third
time, is the ''focal issue' before this Court in
the pending writ petition.

13. It is contended by the learned
senior counsel Shri Manish Tiwary that
after the submission of charge-sheet on
27.11.2014 and on the strength of sanction
accorded
on
22.6.2017,
the
learned
Magistrate
has
taken
cognizance
on
08.4.2021 and thereafter the trial is
galloping with speed whereby the discharge
application (Application No.39 Kha) of the
applicant was rejected on 8.4.2021 and the
next date fixed for framing of the charge.

14. Per contra, Mr. Faraz Kazmi and
Mr. Nishant Singh, learned counsels
representing the State, have defended the
cognizance order by making a mention that
the learned Magistrate is fully justified in
taking cognizance of the offence. Shri
Kazmi
states
that
while
taking
the
cognizance, the only requirement is to look
into the case-diary and the material
collected
during
investigation
and
application of mind by the concerned
Magistrate over the material collected
during investigation, plus sanction letter
accorded by the Governor. Magistrate
cannot look into the legality and propriety
of the sanctioning letter, and as such, the
cognizance order dated 8.4.2021 does not
suffer from any legal perversity or flaw.

15. Learned counsel for the applicant
did not advance any argument regarding
the rejection of discharge application dated
8.4.2021, thus, it would be deemed that he
266 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
has nothing to argue assailing the legality
of the aforesaid order dated 8.4.2021.

16.

After
hearing
the
rival
submissions made at the Bar, the Court has
got an opportunity to formulate the legal
issue, as follows :

17. Carrying the two rejections on the
earlier occasions, as contemplated u/s 19 of
the P.C. Act, which is sine qua non for any
criminal proceedings against the propose
offender, the sanction was accorded third
time on 22.6.2017, after change in the
establishment of the State of U.P. in the
year 2017. Without having any new
material on record against the applicant, the
third sanctioning order is fallacious and
untenable in the eyes of law. Thus the
sanction order dated 22.6.2017 is now the
pivotal issue of the controversy involved. It
is urged that till such time i.e. sanctioning
order dated 22.6.2017 its sanctity is not
established by the legal pronouncement,
entire subsequent proceeding is an exercise
in
futility,
and
as
such,
proceedings/prosecution
against
the
applicant should be halted, till the writ
petition is decided.

18. Shri Faraz Kazmi, learned counsel
representing the State, reiterated his earlier
submission that no doubt the legality and
propriety of the third sanction letter dated
22.6.2017 is under challenge by means of
Crl. Misc. Writ Petition 5877 of 2021, still
it would not act as embargo in the present
proceedings,
because
while
taking
cognizance of the offence the Magistrate is
required to take cognizance of the offence
relying
upon
the
sufficiency
or
insufficiency of the material collected
during investigation, coupled with the
sanction letter issued by the Government of
U.P. Magistrate is not supposed to give his
legal verdict upon the legality and validity
of the sanction letter nor he is required to
evaluate the sanction and its propriety or its
sufficiency or insufficiency.

19. It's true that the writ court is
seized with the matter with regard to the
legality
and
propriety
of
the
third
sanctioning letter dated 22.6.2017 and it's
not proper on my part to express my views
over that issue. The Court is required to
evaluate (a) as to whether the cognizance
order dated 8.4.2021 is legally sustainable
and (b) can the Court halt the further
proceedings of the present case until the
writ is decided ?

LEGAL DISCUSSION

20. The Prevention of Corruption Act
was initially enacted in 1947 and later on
amended
in
1964
based
on
recommendations
of
the
Santhanam
Committee.
There
are
provisions
of
Chapter-IX of the I.P.C. to deal with public
servants and those who abet them by way
of criminal misconduct. There are also
provisions in Criminal Law Amendment
Ordinance, 1944 to enable attachment of
ill-gotten wealth obtained through corrupt
means including transfarees of such wealth.
The
present
bill
inter-alia
envisages
widening the scope of definition of ''Public
Servant' incorporation of the offences u/s
161 to 165A of the I.P.C., enhancement of
penalties provided for these offences and
incorporation of a provision that the order
of the trial court upholding the ''grant of
sanction' for prosecution would be final, if
it has already been challenged and the trial
has commenced. In order to expedite the
proceedings, the provisions for day to day
trial of cases and prohibitory provisions
with regard to the grant of the stay and
exercise
of
powers
of
revision
on
1 All. Dr. Abhai Ranjan Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
267
interlocutory
orders
have
also
been
included. Thus the objective of present
enactment is explicit and unambiguous, to
the extent that the present enactment was
promulgated for the expeditious disposal of
trial, on day to day basis within a specific
time frame.

21. Chapter-V of the ''Act of 1988'
provides sanction for the prosecution and
other miscellaneous provisions, in which
Section-19 puts an embargo on the
prosecution that previous sanction is
necessary for the alleged prosecution.
Section 19(i) of the Act states that no
court shall take cognizance of an offence
punishable under Sections 7, 10, 11, 13
and 15 alleged to have been committed
by a public servant, except with the
previous sanction (save as otherwise
provided in the Lokpal and Lokayuktas
Act, 2013). It would be apt to recapitulate
Section-19
of
the
Prevention
of
Corruption Act, herein below :

"19.
Previous
sanction
necessary for prosecution.--

(1)
No
court
shall
take
cognizance of an offence punishable
under sections 7, 10, 11, 13 and 15
alleged to have been committed by a
public servant, except with the previous
sanction [save as otherwise provided in
the Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act, 2013] ,--

(a) in the case of a person [who
is employed, or as the case may be, was
at the time of commission of the alleged
offence employed] in connection with the
affairs of the Union and is not removable
from his office save by or with the
sanction of the Central Government, of
that Government;

(b) in the case of a person
[who is employed, or as the case may be,
was at the time of commission of the
alleged offence employed] in connection
with the affairs of a State and is not
removable from his office save by or with
the sanction of the State Government, of
that Government;

(c) in the case of any other
person, of the authority competent to
remove him from his office.

[Provided that no request can
be made, by a person other than a police
officer or an officer of an investigation
agency
or
other
law
enforcement
authority, to the appropriate Government
or competent authority, as the case may
be, for the previous sanction of such
Government or authority for taking
cognizance by the court of any of the
offences
specified
in
this
subsection,unless-

(i) such person has filed a
complaint in a competent court about the
alleged offences for which the public
servant is sought to be prosecuted; and

(ii) the court has not dismissed
the complaint under section 203 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of
1974) and directed the complainant to
obtain the sanction for prosecution against
the public servant for further proceeding:

Provided further that in the case
of request from the person other than a
police
officer
or
an officer
of
an
investigation
agency
or
other
law
enforcement authority, the appropriate
Government or competent authority shall
not accord sanction to prosecute a public
servant without providing an opportunity of
being heard to the concerned public
servant.
268 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

Provided
also
that
the
appropriate Government or any competent
authority shall, after the receipt of the
proposal
requiring
sanction
for
prosecution of a public servant under this
sub-section, endeavour to convey the
decision on such proposal within a period
of three months from the date of its receipt.

Provided also that in case where,
for the purpose of grant of sanction for
prosecution, legal consultation is required,
such period may, for the reasons to be
recorded in writing, be extended by a
further period of one month:

Provided also that the Central
government may, for the purpose of
sanction for prosecution fo a public
servant, prescribe such guidelines as it
considers necessary.

Explanation.- For the purpose of
sub -section (1), the expression "public
servant" includes such person--

(a) who has ceased to hold the
office during which the offence is alleged to
have been committed; or

(b) who has ceased to hold the
office during which the offence is alleged to
have been committed and is holding an
office other than the office during which the
offence
is
alleged
to
have
been
committed.]"

(2)
Where
for
any
reason
whatsoever any doubt arises as to whether
the previous sanction as required under
sub-section (1) should be given by the
Central
Government
or
the
State
Government or any other authority, such
sanction shall be given by that Government
or authority which would have been
competent to remove the public servant
from his office at the time when the offence
was alleged to have been committed.

(3)
Notwithstanding
anything
contained in the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974),--

(a) no finding, sentence or order
passed by a special Judge shall be reversed
or
altered
by
a
court
in
appeal,
confirmation or revision on the ground of
the absence of, or any error, omission or
irregularity in, the sanction required under
sub-section (1), unless in the opinion of
that court, a failure of justice has in fact
been occasioned thereby;

(b) no court shall stay the
proceedings under this Act on the ground
of any error, omission or irregularity in the
sanction granted by the authority, unless it
is satisfied that such error, omission or
irregularity has resulted in a failure of
justice;

(c) no court shall stay the
proceedings under this Act on any other
ground and no court shall exercise the
powers of revision in relation to any
interlocutory order passed in any inquiry,
trial, appeal or other proceedings.

(4) In determining under subsection (3) whether the absence of, or any
error, omission or irregularity in, such
sanction has occasioned or resulted in a
failure of justice the court shall have
regard to the fact whether the objection
could and should have been raised at any
earlier stage in the proceedings.

Explanation.--For the purposes of
this section,--

(a) error includes competency of
the authority to grant sanction;

(b) a sanction required for
prosecution includes reference to any
requirement that the prosecution shall be at
the instance of a specified authority or with
the sanction of a specified person or any
requirement of a similar nature."

22. The scope of sanction to prosecute is to
ensure that a public servant may not be harassed
or victimized. The sanction is an important
attribute which was to be scroopllosly insisted
1 All. Dr. Abhai Ranjan Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
269
upon to ensure the fair prosecution. Grant of
sanction is a sacrosanct act and is intended to
provide a safeguard to a public servant against
frivolous and vexatious litigations. Grant of
sanction is only an administrative functioning
and the sanctioning authority is required to prima
facie reach the satisfaction that relevant facts
would constitute the offence. The satisfaction of
the sanctioning authority is essential to validate
an order granting sanction. It is incumbent upon
the prosecution to prove that a valid sanction has
been granted by the sanctioning authority after
being satisfied that a case of sanction has been
made out. What is required by the learned
Magistrate to just see the letter accorded by the
sanctioning authority is on record or not? At the
stage of cognizance it is beyond the domain and
scope of the Magistrate to express or adjudicate
the sanction letter. The sanction order may
expressly show that the sanctioning authority has
perused the material before it and, after
consideration of circumstances, has granted
sanction for prosecution. The prosecution may
prove by adducing the evidence that the material
was placed before the sanctioning authority and
its satisfaction was arrived at upon perusal of the
material placed before it. If the sanctioning
authority has perused all the materials placed
before it and some of them have not been
proved, that would not vitiate the order of
sanction.

23. The adequacy of material placed
before the sanctioning authority cannot be gone
into by the court, as it does not sit in appeal over
the sanction order. An order of sanction should
not be construed in a pedantic manner and there
should not be a hypertechnical approach to test
its validity. When there is an order of sanction
by
the
competent
authority
indicating
application of mind, the same should not be
lightly dealt with. The flimsy technicalities
cannot be allowed to become tools in the hands
of an accused. [State of Maharashtra v.
Mahesh G. Jain, (2014) 1 SCC (Crl) 515].

24. Learned counsel for the applicant
relying upon the judgment of Hon'ble Apex
Court in the case of Nanjappa v. State of
Karnataka, AIR 2015 SC 3060, has drawn
attention of the Court to its para 15, quoted
herein below :

"15. The legal position regarding the
importance of sanction under Section 19 of the
Prevention of Corruption is thus much too clear
to admit equivocation. The statute forbids
taking of cognizance by the Court against a
public servant except with the previous sanction
of an authority competent to grant such
sanction in terms of clauses (a), (b) and (c) to
Section 19(1). The question regarding validity
of such sanction can be raised at any stage of
the proceedings. The competence of the court
trying the accused so much depends upon the
existence of a valid sanction. In case the
sanction is found to be invalid the court can
discharge the accused relegating the parties to
a stage where the competent authority may
grant a fresh sanction for prosecution in
accordance with law. If the trial Court
proceeds, despite the invalidity attached to the
sanction order, the same shall be deemed to be
non-est in the eyes of law and shall not forbid a
second trial for the same offences, upon grant
of a valid sanction for such prosecution."

25. On this, it was argued by learned
counsel for the applicant that the learned
Magistrate has committed serious legal
fallacy in taking the cognizance of the
offences and accepting the sanction dated
22.6.2017, which in fact sanction was
granted by the Govt. of U.P. in its third
attempt, and moreover, this precise focal
issue is involved in the pending Crl. Misc.
Writ Petition No.5877 of 2021, and
270 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
therefore, if the trial is allowed to proceed,
the entire prosecution against the applicant
should be construed as tainted one and
deemed to be non-est in the eyes of law.

26. Mr. Faraz Kazmi, learned counsel
representing the State, has drawn attention
of the Court to Section 19(3) of the Act and
produced a judgment decided by the High
Court
of
Punjab
and
Haryana
at
Chandigarh in the case of Vijay Kumar
Janjua vs. State of Punjab and another in
CWP No.10055 of 2010 decided on
24.01.2014. In this judgment, reliance has
been placed on a judgment of Hon'ble Apex
Court in the case of Dinesh Kumar v.
Chairman, Airport Authority of India and
another, (2011) 4 SCC 402 where after
referring the judgment of Prakash Singh
Badal and another v. State of Punjab and
others, (2007) 1 SCC, it has been opined
that there is difference between absence of
sanction and validity of sanction. The issue
regarding absence of sanction can be raised
at the inception by the aggrieved person,
however, where the sanction order exists,
the issue regarding its validity has to be
raised only during course of trial. Relevant
paragraphs of Dinesh Kumar's case (supra)
are being extracted herein below :

"10. The provisions contained in
Section 19(1),(2),(3) and (4) of the P.C. Act
came up for consideration before this
Court in Parkash Singh Badal and
another5. In paras 47 and 48 of the
judgment, the Court held as follows:

"47: The sanctioning authority is
not required to separately specify each of
the offences against the accused public
servant. This is required to be done at the
stage of framing of charge. Law requires
that before the sanctioning authority
materials must be placed so that the
sanctioning authority can apply his mind
and take a decision. Whether there is an
application of mind or not would depend on
the facts and circumstances of each case
and there cannot be any generalised
guidelines in that regard.

48: The sanction in the instant
case related to the offences relatable to the
Act. There is a distinction between the
absence of sanction and the alleged
invalidity on account of non-application of
mind. The former question can be agitated
at the threshold but the latter is a question
which has to be raised during trial."

11. While drawing a distinction
between the absence of sanction and
invalidity of the sanction, this Court in
Parkash Singh Badal expressed in no
uncertain terms that the absence of sanction
could be raised at the inception and
threshold by an aggrieved person. However,
where sanction order exists, but its legality
and validity is put in question, such issue
has to be raised in the course of trial. Of
course, in Parkash Singh Badal, this Court
referred to invalidity of sanction on account
of non- application of mind. In our view,
invalidity of sanction where sanction order
exists, can be raised on diverse grounds like
non-availability of material before the
sanctioning authority or bias of the
sanctioning authority or the order of
sanction having been passed by an authority
not authorised or competent to grant such
sanction. The above grounds are only
illustrative and not exhaustive. All such
grounds of invalidity or illegality of sanction
would fall in the same category like the
ground of invalidity of sanction on account
of non-application of mind - a category
carved out by this Court in Parkash Singh
Badal, the challenge to which can always be
raised in the course of trial."

27. In the case of C.B.I. v. Ashok
Kumar Aggarwal, (2015) 1 SCC (Cri) 344,
1 All. Dr. Abhai Ranjan Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
271
the Hon'ble Supreme Court further clarified
that Section 19(3) of the 1988 Act puts a
complete embargo on the court to grant stay
of trial/proceedings. The court must examine
as to whether the issue raised regarding
tainted sanction has resulted into "failure of
justice"? It is actually "failure of justice" in
the true sense and import or whether it is only
a camouflage argument. The expression
"failure of justice" is an extremely pliable or
facile an expression which can be made to fit
into any case. The court must endeavour to
find out the truth. There would be "failure of
justice" not only by unjust conviction but also
by acquittal of the guilty as a result of unjust
or negligent failure to produce requisite
evidence. Of course, the rights of the accused
have to be kept in mind and safeguarded but
they should not be over emphasised to the
extent of forgetting that the victims also have
certain rights. It has to be shown that the
accused has suffered some disability or
detriment in the protections available to him
under
Indian
Criminal
Jurisprudence.
''Prejudice' is incapable of being interpreted in
its generic sense and applied to criminal
jurisprudence. The plea of prejudice has to be
in relation to investigation or trial and not
matters falling beyond their scope. Once the
accused is able to show that there has been
serious prejudice caused to him with respect
to either of these aspects, and that the same
has defeated the rights available to him under
legal jurisprudence, the accused can seek
relief from the Court. The ''failure of justice'
would be relatable to error, omission or
irregularity in the grant of sanction. However,
a mere error, omission or irregularity in
sanction is not considered to be fatal unless it
has resulted in the ''failure of justice' or has
been occasioned thereby. As mentioned
above, the Court has dealt with the concept of
''failure of justice' in an elaborate way in the
light of the observations made in case of
C.B.I. vs. Ashok Kumar Aggarwal
(supra). In continuation of the same the
expression "failure of justice" would appear,
sometimes, as an etymological chameleon
(the simile is borrowed from Lord Diplock in
Town
Investments
Ltd.
v.
Deptt.
of
Environment, (1977) 1 All ER 813.

28. In a recent judgment the Hon'ble
Apex Court in the case of Girish Kumar
Suneja vs C.B.I. in Criminal Appeal
No.1137 of 2017 decided on 13.7.2017, it
has been held that :

"64. A reading of Section 19(3) of
the PC Act indicates that it deals with three
situations: (i) Sub-clause (a) deals a
situation where a final judgment and
sentence has been delivered by the Special
Judge. We are not concerned with this
situation. (ii) Sub-clause (b) deals with a
stay of proceedings under the PC Act in the
event of any error, omission or irregularity
in the grant of sanction by the concerned
authority to prosecute the accused person.
It is made clear that no court shall grant a
stay of proceedings on such a ground
except if the court is satisfied that the error,
omission or irregularity has resulted in a
failure of justice - then and only then can
the court grant a stay of proceedings under
the PC Act. (iii) Sub-clause (c) provides for
a blanket prohibition against a stay of
proceedings under the PC Act even if there
is a failure of justice [subject of course to
sub-clause (b)]. It mandates that no court
shall stay proceedings "on any other
ground" that is to say any ground other
than a ground relatable to the error,
omission or irregularity in the sanction
resulting in a failure of justice.

65. A conjoint reading of subclause (b) and sub-clause (c) of Section
272 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
19(3) of the PC Act makes it is clear that a
stay of proceedings could be granted only
and only if there is an error, omission or
irregularity in the sanction granted for a
prosecution and that error, omission or
irregularity has resulted in a failure of
justice. There is no other situation that is
Crl. Appeal Nos.______/2017 etc. (@ SLP
(Crl.) Nos. 9503/2016 etc.) contemplated
for the grant of a stay of proceedings under
the
PC
Act
on any
other
ground
whatsoever, even if there is a failure of
justice. Clause (c) additionally mandates a
prohibition on the exercise of revision
jurisdiction in respect of any interlocutory
order passed in any trial such as those that
we have already referred to. In our
opinion, the provisions of clauses (b) and
(c) of Section 19(3) of the PC Act read
together are quite clear and do not admit of
any ambiguity or the need for any further
interpretation.

66. Sub-section (4) of Section 19
of the PC Act is also important in this
context inasmuch as the time lapse in
challenging
an
error,
omission
or
irregularity in the sanction resulting in a
failure of justice is of considerable
significance. Unless the challenge is made
at the initial stages of a trial and within a
reasonable period of time, the court would
not be obliged to consider the absence of,
or any error, omission or irregularity in the
sanction for prosecution. Therefore, it is
not as if the accused can, after an
unreasonable delay, raise an issue about
the sanction; but if that accused does so,
the court may not decide that issue both at
the appellate stage as well as for the
purposes of stay of the proceedings."

29. In yet another judgment in the
case of State of Bihar vs. Rajmangal Ram,
AIR 2014 SC 1674, the Hon'ble Apex
Court has observed that in a situation where
any error, omission or irregularity in the
sanction, which would also include the
competence of the authority to grant
sanction, does not vitiate the eventual
conclusion in the trial including the
conviction and sentence, unless of course a
''failure of justice' has occurred, it is
difficult to see how at the intermediary
stage a criminal prosecution can be
nullified or interdicted on account of any
such error, omission or irregularity in the
sanction order without arriving at the
satisfaction that a ''failure of justice' has
also been occasioned.

30. In the entire submission Shri
Tiwari, learned Senior Advocate has
hammered his submission that since the
subject matter of the third sanction dated
22.6.2017 is on target of Crl. Misc. Writ
Petition No.5877 of 2021, and yet to see its
final day and on the other hand if the trial is
permitted to proceed, a serious prejudice
would be caused to the applicant. Not a
single word was whispered by him as to
what would amount the ''failure of justice'
to the applicant, if the trial is permitted to
proceed. In the recent judgment in the case
of State of Maharashtra vs Mahesh G.
Jain (2014) 1 SCC (Cri) 515, the Division
Bench of this Hon'ble Apex Court while
dealing with such issues, has opined :

"In these kind of matters there
has to be reflection of promptitude,
abhorrence
for
procrastination,
real
understanding of the law and to further
remain alive to differentiate between hypertechnical contentions and the acceptable
legal
proponements.
While
sanctity
attached to an order of sanction should
never be forgotten but simultaneously the
rampant competition in the society has to
be kept in view. The Court is concious of
the fact that how frequent adjournments
1 All. Dr. Abhai Ranjan Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
273
are sought in a maladroit manner to linger
the trial and how at every stage ingenious
efforts are made to assail every interim
order. It is the duty of the Court that the
matters are appropriately delt with on the
proper understanding of the law. Minor
irregularities or technicalities are not to be
given Everestine Status. It should be borne
in mind that historically corruption is a
disquiet disease for healthy governance. It
has potentiality to stifle the progress of a
civilized society. It ushers in an atmosphere
of distrust. Corruption fundamentally is
perversion and infectious and an individual
perversity can become a social evil."

31. The Court has occasion to peruse
Section
4(4)
of
the
Prevention
of
Corruption Act, 1988 which reads thus :

"(4) Notwithstanding anything
contained in the Code of
Criminal
Procedure, 1973, the trial of an offence
shall be held, as far as practicable, on dayto-day basis and an endeavour shall be
made to ensure that the said trial is
concluded within a period of two years:

Provided that where the trial is
not concluded within the said period, the
special Judge shall record the reasons for
not having done so:

Provided further that the said
period may be extended by such further
period, for reasons to be recorded in
writing but not exceeding six months at a
time; so, however, that the said period
together with such extended period shall
not exceed ordinarily four years in
aggregate.''

32. Coupled with the provisions of
Section 19(3) of the Act where there is
specific embargo for granting any stay
order on the ground of any error,
omission or irregularity in the sanction
granted by the authority, unless it has
resulted into failure of justice.

33. Learned counsel for the applicant
has miserably failed to bring on record
even a single instance regarding "failure of
justice" having been occasioned to the
appellant. It is not a case of absence of
sanction, but in this case sanction has been
granted vide order dated 22.6.2017 and
same is subject matter of challenge in writ
jurisdiction.