# Sanjaya Dikshit Revisionist v. C.B.I

- **Citation:** (2024) 7 ILRA 733
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2024-07-04
- **Case number:** Criminal Revision No. 529 of 2024
- **Bench:** Pankaj Bhatia
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/sanjaya-dikshit-revisionist-v-c-b-i-52280
- **Pages:** 15

## Headnote

A. Criminal Law - Criminal Procedure
Code, 1973-Section 397/401- Prevention
of Corruption Act, 1988-Section 19-FIR
lodged against the revisionist with the
allegation that Rs, 6 lacs was paid to the
734 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
revisionist for showing undue favours to
accused firm--In the present case, the
sanction order granted by the authority
not
empowered
and
thus
without
jurisdiction,
thus,
the
discharged
application filed by the revisionist ought
to
have
been
allowed-Initiating
prosecution on the foundation of an
invalid/ non est sanction order will be in
the teeth of restrictions imposed under
section 19 of the PC Act and would clearly
occasion failure of justice.(Para 1 to 29)

The revision is allowed. (E-6)

List of Cases cited:

## Text

_Characters 0–39,740 of 47,844. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39740 for what follows._

7 All. Sanjaya Dikshit Vs. C.B.I.
733
suo moto take up the case and consider
whether the conditions of bail require
modification/relaxation.

 7) One of the reasons which
delays the release of the accused/convict is
the insistence upon local surety. It is
suggested that in such cases, the courts
may not impose the condition of local
surety."

(Emphasis added)

 11. We order that the aforesaid
directions shall be complied with."

5. The order for release of the
applicant on bail was passed way back on
26.05.2023 and in spite of an order passed
by this Court for his release, the applicant
could not secure his release for a period of
more than one year. It appears that during
this long period of more than one year, the
Superintendent of Jail has not sent any
information of this fact to the Secretary,
DLSA and consequently the Secretary
DLSA has also not deputed any para legal
volunteer or jail visiting advocate to
interact with the applicant and assist him
for his release, which inaction is a violation
of the directions issued by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in Policy Strategy for
Grant of Bail, In re (Supra).

6. Keeping in view the fact that the
applicant was ordered to be released on bail
on 26.05.2023 and he could not be released
for want of sureties even after expiry of
more than one year, it appears to be just
that the condition for submission of two
sureties imposed in the order dated
26.05.2023 be revoked.

7. Accordingly, the order dated
26.05.2023 is modified to the extent that
the applicant shall be released on bail upon
submission of a personal bond to the
satisfaction of the trial Court, without
submission of any other surety. The other
conditions of the order dated 26.05.2023
passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application
No.4769 of 2022 shall remain the same.

8. The Registrar Compliance of
this Court is directed to ensure circulation
of the directions issued by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in Policy Strategy for
Grant of Bail, In re, 2023 SCC OnLine
SC 483 amongst the Presiding Officers of
the District Courts through the District
Judges and amongst the Police and Jail
Authorities through the Additional Chief
Secretary - Home, Government of Uttar
Pradesh to ensure proper compliance of the
same.
----------
(2024) 7 ILRA 733
REVISIONAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 04.07.2024

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE PANKAJ BHATIA, J.

Criminal Revision No. 529 of 2024

Sanjaya Dikshit ...Revisionist
Versus
C.B.I. ...Opposite Party

Counsel for the Revisionist:
Sri Chandra Bhushan Pandey, Sri Asim
Kumar Singh

Counsel for the Opposite Party:
Sri Anurag Kumar Singh

A. Criminal Law - Criminal Procedure
Code, 1973-Section 397/401- Prevention
of Corruption Act, 1988-Section 19-FIR
lodged against the revisionist with the
allegation that Rs, 6 lacs was paid to the
734 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
revisionist for showing undue favours to
accused firm--In the present case, the
sanction order granted by the authority
not
empowered
and
thus
without
jurisdiction,
thus,
the
discharged
application filed by the revisionist ought
to
have
been
allowed-Initiating
prosecution on the foundation of an
invalid/ non est sanction order will be in
the teeth of restrictions imposed under
section 19 of the PC Act and would clearly
occasion failure of justice.(Para 1 to 29)

The revision is allowed. (E-6)

List of Cases cited:

1. CBI Vs R. Bhuvaneswari & anr. (2024) SCC
OnLine Bom 123

2. Sreenivasa Reddy Vs CBI , WP No. 33297 of
2016

3. Dinesh Kumar Vs Chairman, AAI & anr.
(2012) 1 SCC 532

4. St. of Bih. & ors.Vs Rajmangal Ram (2014) 11
SCC 388

5. Vivek Batra Vs U.O.I. & ors.(2017) 1 SCC 69

6. Abhai Ranjan Vs St. of U.P. & ors.
MANU/UP/2797/2021

7. St. of Karn.Vs Ameerjan (2007) 11 SCC 273

8. Prakash Singh Badal Vs St. of Punj. (2007) 1
SCC 1

9. Vijay Rajmohan Vs St. Rrtd. By Insp. Of
Police, CBI ACB, Chennai, T.N. CRLA No. 001746
of 2022

(Delivered by Hon'ble Pankaj Bhatia, J.)

 1. Present revision has been filed
challenging the order dated 20.04.2024
passed by learned Special Judge, Anti
Corruption, Central Bureau of Investigation
(Central) Lucknow in Criminal Case No.01
of 2012 (Union of India through C.B.I. v.
Sanjaya Dikshit and ors.) whereby the
discharge application preferred by the
revisionist came to be dismissed.

2. The facts, in brief, leading to
filing of the present revision are as under:

 (i) The revisionist joined State
Bank of India as a Probationary Officer and
subsequently promoted to the post of
Deputy General Manager in the year 2008;
he joined as Branch Head of the Kanpur
Branch on 17.05.2008. The appointing
authority of the revisionist is the Executive
Committee of the Central Board of the
State Bank of India. While the revisionist
was working as a Branch Head of the Bank
at Kanpur, a First Information Report came
to be lodged against the revisionist and 11
other persons on the basis of a complaint
dated 13.08.2009 lodged by the General
Manager, State Bank of India, Lucknow.
After investigation, a charge-sheet came to
be filed on 25.03.2011. As regards the
revisionist, the allegation against him was
that an amount of Rs.6 Lacs was paid by
the co-accused to the revisionist as a
motive or reward for showing undue
favours
to
accused
firm
M/s
SRS
Investment Company. After the filing of
the charge-sheet, the revisionist moved an
application
seeking
discharge
under
Section 227 of the Cr.P.c. mainly on the
ground that no case was made out against
the revisionist. He also challenged that
there was no sanction for prosecuting the
revisionist which was required in pursuance
to the mandate of Section 19 of the
Prevention of Corruption Act (hereinafter
referred to as 'the PC Act'). It has been
brought on record that initially the sanction
was refused by the Board which is on
record as Annexure - 5. In terms of the
refusal of sanction by the appointing
authority, an opinion was sought from the
7 All. Sanjaya Dikshit Vs. C.B.I.
735
Central Vigilance Commission (hereinafter
referred
to
as
'the
CVC')
through
communication
dated
30.08.2011
(Annexure - 5). Subsequently, when a
challenge was made by the revisionist that
there is no sanction for prosecution, the
CBI which is the prosecuting agency, filed
before the trial Court a Sanction Order
dated 17.04.2012 according sanction under
Section 19 of the PC Act. The said sanction
order is on record as Annexure - 6.

 (ii) It also bears from record that
during trial, the initial refusal to grant
sanction in case of the revisionist was
sought by the revisionist before the trial
Court by moving an appropriate application
under Section 91 of the Cr.P.C. which is
contained in Annexure - 7. In pursuance to
the application filed by the revisionist
seeking to bring on record the refusal to
Sanction Order dated 30.08.2011, an order
came to be passed by the trial Court on
04.01.2012
calling
upon
the
Chief
Vigilance Officer, State Bank of India to
produce a copy of the letter dated
30.08.2011 before the date fixed.

 (iii) It also bears from record that
in pursuance to the said order passed by the
trial Court, the refusal to sanction order
dated 30.08.2011 was produced before the
trial Court and is part of the record. The
trial Court vide impugned order dated
20.04.2024
rejected
the
discharge
application filed by the revisionist through
an extensive order. In the said order, the
trial Court had noticed that the competent
authority had given the sanction for
prosecution in respect of the revisionist,
and based upon the said, the discharge
application came to be rejected.

3. While arguing the present
revision, Shri Chandra Bhushan Pandey,
learned counsel assisted by Shri Asim K.
Singh, learned counsel for the revisionist
confines his challenge to the impugned
order only insofar as it is on the basis of a
sanction which, according to the counsel
for the revisionist, is not a sanction order
prescribed under Section 19 of the PC Act.
He has not pressed any other point in the
present revision.

4. To buttress his submission, my
attention is drawn by the counsel for the
revisionist to the order dated 30.08.2011
whereby a communication was addressed
to
Secretary,
Central
Vigilance
Commission stating that CBI has requested
for grant of sanction of prosecution of the
officials of the State Bank of India,
including the present revisionist. It was
further
informed
that
the
appointing
authority
has
declined
sanction
for
prosecution for the reasons disclosed. The
reasons
and
the
comments
of
the
appointing authority with regard to the
revisionist are part of the note appended to
the
communication
dated
30.08.2011
whereby the appointing authority was of
the clear view that as there is no criminal
act on the part of the revisionist, the
Executive Committee of the Central Board
have decided to decline the sanction. The
record, including the trial Court record
which were summoned by this Court, does
not indicate or include any response of the
CVC.
In
response
to
the
said
communication dated 30.08.2011, however,
a fresh sanction order came to be passed in
the case of revisionist on 17.04.2012
(Annexure - 6). A perusal of the said
sanction order reveals that one Shri A.
Krishna Kumar, Managing Director &
Group
Executive,
National
Banking
recorded that he was the officer authorized
to sign the sanction order on behalf of the
authority competent to remove the said Shri
736 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Sanjaya Dikshit. The complete extract is
recorded hereunder:

 "AND WHEREAS, 1, (A. Krishna
Kumar, Managing Director & Group
Executive, National Banking), being the
officer authorized to sign this sanction
order on behalf of the authority competent
to remove the said Shri Sanjaya Dikshit
after fully and carefully examining, the
material, including the statements of
witnesses recorded by the invesigating
officer recorded under the provisions of
Sec. 161 of Criminal Procedure Code
1973 respectively placed before me, in
regard to the said allegations and the
circumstances of the case, consider that
the said Shri Sanjaya Dikshit should be
prosecuted in the court of law for the said
offences.

 AND WHEREAS, I, CA. Krishna
Kumar, Managing Director & Group
Executive, Nation. banking) do hereby
accord sanction under section 19 of the
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (Act II
of 1988) for the prosecution of the said Shri
Sanjaya Dikshit for the said offences and
any
other
offence
under
any other
provisions of law in respect of the acts,
aforesaid and for taking cognizance of the
said offences by the court of competent
jurisdiction."

5. The submission of learned
counsel for the revisionist is that the
Sanction Order dated 17.04.2012 is not by
a competent authority; he further argues
that in the entire order dated 17.04.2012,
there is no reference to the earlier order
refusing to grant sanction by the appointing
authority and thus, on these two counts
itself, the trial Court ought to have allowed
the discharge application as it is well
settled in terms of the mandate of Section
19 of The PC Act, that without sanction,
the prosecution cannot take place. It is also
argued that the reference by the trial Court
in the impugned order,that the competent
authority
has
granted
sanction
for
prosecuting the revisionist is wholly
without application of mind and without
even referring to the earlier refusal order
dated 30.08.2011. He places reliance on a
judgment of the Supreme Court in the case
of State of Himachal Pradesh v. Nishant
Sareen1 and particularly emphasises on
Paragraphs - 11, 12, 13, 14 & 15, which
are to the following effect:

 "11. This Court in Bhatti Case
then noticed the opinion of the High Court
which was recorded as follows : (SCC p.
96, para 9)

 "9. ... 'Once the Government
passes the order under Section 19 of the
Act or under Section 197 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, declining the sanction
to
prosecute
the
official
concerned,
reviewing such an order on the basis of the
same
material,
which
already
stood
considered, would not be appropriate or
permissible."

 While
affirming
the
above
opinion of the High Court, this Court held
in paragraphs 20 and 21 of the Report as
under : (Bhatti Case, SCC p. 99)

 "20. It was, therefore, not a case
where fresh materials were placed before
the
sanctioning
authority.
No
case,
therefore,
was
made
out
that
the
sanctioning authority had failed to take
into consideration a relevant fact or took
into consideration an irrelevant fact. If the
clarification sought for by the Hon'ble
Minister had been supplied, as has been
contended before us, the same should have
7 All. Sanjaya Dikshit Vs. C.B.I.
737
formed a ground for reconsideration of the
order. It is stated before us that the
Government sent nine letters for obtaining
the clarifications which were not replied
to."

 "21. The High Court in its
judgment has clearly held, upon perusing
the entire records, that no fresh material
was produced. There is also nothing to
show as to why reconsideration became
necessary. On what premise such a
procedure was adopted is not known.
Application of mind is also absent to show
the necessity for reconsideration or review
of the earlier order on the basis of the
materials placed before the sanctioning
authority or otherwise."

 12.
It
is
true
that
the
Government in the matter of grant or
refusal
to
grant
sanction
exercises
statutory power and that would not mean
that power once exercised cannot be
exercised again or at a subsequent stage
in the absence of express power of review
in no circumstance whatsoever. The
power
of
review,
however,
is
not
unbridled or unrestricted. It seems to us
sound principle to follow that once the
statutory power under Section 19 of the
1988 Act or Section 197 of the Code has
been exercised by the Government or the
competent authority, as the case may be,
it is not permissible for the sanctioning
authority to review or reconsider the
matter on the same materials again. It is
so because unrestricted power of review
may not bring finality to such exercise
and on change of the Government or
change of the person authorised to
exercise power of sanction, the matter
concerning sanction may be reopened by
such authority for the reasons best known
to it and a different order may be passed.
The opinion on the same materials, thus,
may keep on changing and there may not
be any end to such statutory exercise.

 13. In our opinion, a change of
opinion per se on the same materials
cannot be a ground for reviewing or
reconsidering the earlier order refusing
to grant sanction. However, in a case
where
fresh
materials
have
been
collected by the investigating agency
subsequent to the earlier order and
placed before the sanctioning authority
and on
that
basis,
the
matter
is
reconsidered by the sanctioning authority
and in light of the fresh materials an
opinion is formed that sanction to
prosecute the public servant may be
granted,
there
may
not
be
any
impediment to adopt such course."

 14. Insofar as the present case is
concerned, it is not even the case of the
appellant
that
fresh
materials
were
collected by the investigating agency and
placed before the sanctioning authority for
reconsideration and/or for review of the
earlier order refusing to grant sanction. As
a matter of fact, from the perusal of the
subsequent order dated March 15, 2008 it
is clear that on the same materials, the
sanctioning authority has changed its
opinion and ordered sanction to prosecute
the respondent which, in our opinion, is
clearly impermissible.

 15. By way of foot-note, we may
observe that the investigating agency
might have had legitimate grievance about
the order dated November 27, 2007
refusing to grant sanction, and if that
were so and no fresh materials were
necessary, it ought to have challenged the
order of the sanctioning authority but that
was not done. The power of the sanctioning
738 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
authority being not of continuing character
could have been exercised only once on the
same materials."

6. He also strongly relies upon the
judgment of the Bombay High Court in the
case of Central Bureau of Investigation v.
R. Bhuvaneswari and Anr.2 and on the
judgment in the case of A. Sreenivasa
Reddy v. C.B.I.3.

7. He lastly argues that in view of
the mandate of Section 401 of Cr.P.C., this
Court can decide the issue without
remanding the matter as while exercising
the power of revision, the High Court in its
discretion can exercise all the powers
conferred on a Court of Appeal.

8. Shri Anurag Kumar Singh,
learned counsel appearing for the CBI has
strongly opposed the revision by arguing
that the validity of the sanction or the
correctness can be seen only at the time of
trial and not at the time of discharge
sought. He further argues that the order
impugned has not occasioned a failure of
justice which is a sine qua non for
exercising the revisional power and on that
count, this Court while exercising its
revisional power should not interfere. He
further argues that any order of sanction
has to be sent to the CVC for its opinion
which is duly empowered to exercise the
power vested in it by virtue of Section 8(g)
of The Central Vigilance Commission Act,
2003 (hereinafter referred to as 'the CVC
Act') and thus, it is the final order - which
in the present case is the sanction order
dated 17.04.2012 - which has to be taken
into consideration to form a view whether
the sanction was there or not, and any act
done prior to the same, including the
sending of a view by the appointing
authority to the CVC and the view of the
CVC, are steps in process of reaching a
final conclusion and cannot be taken into
consideration by the trial Court for
examining the factum of sanction.

9. He further argues that in terms
of the powers conferred under the CVC
Act, an office memorandum has been
issued by the Ministry of Personnel,
Public
Grievances
and
Pensions,
Department of Personnel and Training
being
Office
Memorandum
No.372/6/2017-AVD-III,
Dated
02nd
December, 2020, relevant portion of
which is to the following effect:

...

 3. Recently, CVC has observed
that
some
Ministries/Department,
specifically CPSUs and Public Sector
Banks,
are
not
following
the
said
guidelines/instructions
in
true
spirit.
Further, in certain cases the Competent
Authority formally declined the sanction for
prosecution and then referred the matter to
the CVC for advice.

 4.
As
once
the
Competent
Authority
takes
a
decision
and
communicates it to the CBI, the matter of
grant of sanction for prosecution cannot be
reviewed, it is important that the requisite
consultation with CVC, etc. is completed
before the Competent Authority takes a
decision in such matters."

10. Learned counsel for the CBI
places reliance on the following judgments:

 Dinesh Kumar v. Chairman,
Airport Authority of India and Anr.4

 State of Bihar and ors. v.
Rajmangal Ram5
7 All. Sanjaya Dikshit Vs. C.B.I.
739
 Vivek Batra v. Union of India
and Ors.6

 Abhai Ranjan v. State of U.P. &
Ors.7

11. He, thus, concludes his
argument by arguing that on the point of
sanction, the submission of counsel for the
revisionist merits rejection and should be
rejected.

12. To appreciate the arguments
raised at the Bar, it is essential to note the
scheme of the PC Act, particularly Section
19, which is as under:

 "19. Previous sanction necessary
for prosecution.- (1) No court shall take
cognizance of an offence punishable under
sections 7, 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 (1 of 2014) -

 (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 sub-section,
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:

 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:
740 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
 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 of a public
servant, prescribe such guidelines as it
considers necessary.

 Explanation.- For the purposes 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."
7 All. Sanjaya Dikshit Vs. C.B.I.
741
13. On a plain reading of Section
19 of the PC Act, it is clear that the said
section was inserted to ensure that there are
no unnecessary prosecutions specifically in
respect of public servants and thus, the
provision for grant of sanction was
prescribed. In short there cannot be ant
prosecution of any public servant under
The PC Act without an order of sanction by
the empowered Authority in accordance
with
law.Section
19(1)(c)
which
is
applicable to the facts of the present case
prescribes for a sanction from the authority
competent to remove him from his offence
which in the present case is the Executive
Committee of the Central Board of the
State Bank of India.

14. It is clear from the records
(communication dated 30.8.2011 )that the
said Executive Committee of Central Board
of the State Bank of India had clearly
declined the sanctioned for prosecution in
case of the revisionist and the said decision
was communicated to the CVC. It appears
that the subsequent sanction order dated
17.04.2012 must have been in pursuance to
any opinion given by the CVC in pursuance
to the communication dated 30.08.2011,
however, the same is not on record. The
sanction order dated 17.04.2012 is signed
by Managing Director & Group Executive
(National
Banking)
Corporate
Centre,
Mumbai and the perusal of the said order,
specifically the portion extracted herein
above, demonstrates that the said Shri A.
Krishna Kumar claims to be authorized by
the authority competent to remove the
revisionist. It is also clear that the said
person
had
examined
the
materials
including the statement of witnesses
recorded by the Investigating Officer
recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and
had also considered the circumstances of
the case, and based upon the said
observation,(as recorded in the sanction
order dated 17.4.12) he proceeded to grant
the sanction. Although, it has not been
argued before this Court that in terms of the
mandate of Section 19(1)(c) of the PC Act,
the power of sanction vests only in the
authority competent to remove him from
the office, and there is no provision to
further delegate the power in favour of
anyone which appears to be the case in the
present case.

15. The subsequent sanction order
dated 17.04.2012 based upon which the
Revisionist is proposed to be prosecuted, is
admittedly by an officer claiming to be a
delegatee of the appointing authority and
not by the appointing authority/authority
specified under section 19(1)(c) of the PC
Act . The delegation of powers by a person
empowered is neither permissible under
The PC Act nor can be done by the
authority empowered as the same would
violate
the
well
settled
principles
"Delegatee non potest delegare".

16. The said sanction order dated
17.04.2012 prima-facie does not even
disclose any application of mind while
granting the sanction insofar as it records
that it has carefully examined the material,
including the submissions, however, there
is no reference whatsoever to the earlier
refusal of sanction order dated 30.08.2011
whereby the appointing authority had
specifically
refused
the
sanction
for
prosecuting the revisionist. There is no
mention whatsoever of any opinion/advice
received by the CVC under Section 8(1)(g)
of the CVC Act, based upon which the
sanction for prosecution is founded, thus,
on the face of it, the sanction was clearly
without any application of mind and by an
authority which is claiming itself the
delegatee of the appointing authority
742 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
without there being any provision of
delegation of the authority prescribed under
the PC Act.

17. To analyze the judgments
placed by the learned counsel(s), it is
important to refer to the judgment of the
Supreme Court in the case of Nishant
Sareen (supra) wherein the Supreme Court
after analyzing the scheme of Section 19 of
the PC Act recorded the underlying object
of Section 19 as under:

 "7. The object underlying Section
19 is to ensure that a public servant does
not suffer harassment on false, frivolous,
concocted or unsubstantiated allegations.
The exercise of power under Section 19 is
not
an
empty
formality
since
the
Government
or
for
that
matter
the
sanctioning authority is supposed to apply
its mind to the entire material and evidence
placed before it and on examination thereof
reach conclusion fairly, objectively and
consistent with public interest as to
whether
or
not
in
the
facts
and
circumstances sanction be accorded to
prosecute
the
public
servant.
In
Mansukhlal Vithaldas Chauhan vs. State of
Gujarat, this Court observed: (SCC p.631,
para 17)

 "17. ... Sanction is a weapon to
ensure discouragement of frivolous and
vexatious prosecution and is a safeguard
for the innocent but not a shield for the
guilty'.

 8. Section 19 or for that matter
Section
197
of
Code
of
Criminal
Procedure, 1973 (for short, `the Code')
does not make any express provision
regarding review or reconsideration of the
matter by the sanctioning authority once
such power has been exercised. In
Gopikant Choudhary v. State of Bihar and
Ors., initially the Minister concerned
refused to accord sanction to prosecute the
public servant therein and an order was
passed to that effect. Subsequently, after
retirement of the public servant, the matter
was taken up by the Chief Minister and he
granted sanction for prosecution of the
public servant concerned. The question that
arose for consideration before this Court
was the correctness of the order passed by
the Chief Minister. This Court set aside the
order of the Chief Minister granting
sanction to prosecute the public servant,
inter alia, on the ground that the Chief
Minister did not have any occasion to
reconsider the matter and pass fresh order
sanctioning the prosecution.

 9. In Romesh Lal Jain v.
Naginder Singh Rana & Ors. , it was held
by this Court that : (SCC p. 303 para 14)

 "14. ... an order granting or
refusing sanction must be preceded by
application of mind on the part of the
appropriate authority. If the complainant
or accused can demonstrate such an order
granting or refusing sanction to be
suffering from nonapplication of mind, the
same may be called in question before the
competent court of law."

And ultimately concluded as under:

 "12.
It
is
true
that
the
Government in the matter of grant or
refusal to grant sanction exercises statutory
power and that would not mean that power
once exercised cannot be exercised again
or at a subsequent stage in the absence of
express power of review in no circumstance
whatsoever. The power of review, however,
is not unbridled or unrestricted. It seems to
us sound principle to follow that once the
7 All. Sanjaya Dikshit Vs. C.B.I.
743
statutory power under Section 19 of the
1988 Act or Section 197 of the Code has
been exercised by the Government or the
competent authority, as the case may be, it
is not permissible for the sanctioning
authority to review or reconsider the
matter on the same materials again. It is so
because unrestricted power of review may
not bring finality to such exercise and on
change of the Government or change of the
person authorised to exercise power of
sanction, the matter concerning sanction
may be reopened by such authority for the
reasons best known to it and a different
order may be passed. The opinion on the
same materials, thus, may keep on
changing and there may not be any end to
such statutory exercise.

 13. In our opinion, a change of
opinion per se on the same materials
cannot be a ground for reviewing or
reconsidering the earlier order refusing to
grant sanction. However, in a case where
fresh materials have been collected by the
investigating agency subsequent to the
earlier order and placed before the
sanctioning authority and on that basis, the
matter is reconsidered by the sanctioning
authority and in light of the fresh materials
an opinion is formed that sanction to
prosecute the public servant may be
granted, there may not be any impediment
to adopt such course."

18. In the next judgment cited by
learned counsel for the revisionist i.e. R.
Bhuvaneswari (supra), the High Court of
Bombay was hearing a matter arising out of
an order of discharge allowed by the trial
Court. In the said case, on three different
occasions, the sanction was refused by the
appointing authority and was sent for
opinion to the CVC and ultimately, on the
basis of the views expressed by the CVC, a
sanction order came to be passed. The said
manner of exercise was not accepted by the
trial Court and the said view was affirmed
in the revision.

19. It is also essential to notice the
judgment cited by learned counsel for the
CBI, particularly in the case of Rajmangal
Ram (supra) wherein it was held that the
error, omission or irregularity should be
coupled with failure of justice. Paragraph -
9 of the said judgment reads as under:

 "9. In the instant cases the High
Court
had
interdicted
the
criminal
proceedings on the ground that the Law
Department
was
not
the
competent
authority to accord sanction for the
prosecution of the respondents. Even
assuming that the Law Department was not
competent, it was still necessary for the
High Court to reach the conclusion that a
failure of justice has been occasioned. Such
a finding is conspicuously absent rendering
it difficult to sustain the impugned orders of
the High Court."

20. It is also essential to note the
judgment of the Supreme Court in the case
of Dinesh Kumar (supra) wherein the
Supreme
Court
noticed
the
earlier
judgments of the Supreme Court in the case
of State of Karnataka v. Ameerjan8 and
Parkash Singh Badal v. State of Punjab9
to the following effect:

 "11. In a later decision, in the
case of Ameerjan, this Court had an
occasion to consider the earlier decisions
of this Court including the decision in the
case of Parkash Singh Badal. Ameerjan
was a case where the Trial Judge, on
consideration
of
the
entire
evidence
including the evidence of sanctioning
authority, held that the accused Ameerjan
744 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
was guilty of commission of offences
punishable under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d)
read with Section 13(2) of the P.C. Act.
However, the High Court overturned the
judgment of the Trial Court and held that
the order of sanction was illegal and the
judgment of conviction could not be
sustained.

 12. Dealing with the situation of
the case wherein the High Court reversed
the judgment of the conviction of the
accused on the ground of invalidity of
sanction order, with reference to the case
of Parkash Singh Badal, this Court stated
in Ameerjan in para 17 of the Report as
follows: (SCC p. 280)

 "17.
Parkash
Singh
Badal,
therefore, is not an authority for the
proposition that even when an order of
sanction is held to be wholly invalid inter
alia on the premise that the order is a
nullity having been suffering from the vice
of total non-application of mind. We,
therefore, are of the opinion that the said
decision cannot be said to have any
application in the instant case."

 13. In our view, having regard to
the facts of the present case, now since
cognizance has already been taken against
the appellant by the Trial Judge, the High
Court cannot be said to have erred in
leaving the question of validity of sanction
open for consideration by the Trial Court
and giving liberty to the appellant to raise
the issue concerning validity of sanction
order in the course of trial. Such course is
in accord with the decision of this Court in
Parkash Singh Badal and not unjustified."

21. The emphasis of Shri Anurag
Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the CBI, is
on the observation made in Paragraph - 13 of
Dinesh Kumar's (supra) judgment, as
extracted above, however, the Supreme Court
itself had observed that having regard to the
facts of the present case, since the cognizance
has already been taken against the appellant
by the trial judge, the High Court cannot be
said to have erred in leaving the question of
validity of sanction opened for consideration
by the trial Court during the trial.

22. In the other judgment cited by
Shri Anurag Kumar Singh in the case of
Vivek Batra (supra), prima-facie, there is no
issue akin to the issue in the present revision,
decided in the said judgment.

23. The judgment of the Supreme
Court in the case of Vijay Rajmohan v. State
Represented by the Inspector of Police, CBI,
ACB, Chennai, Tamil Nadu10 - although
not cited by any of the parties - is an
important judgment which deals with the
issues as raised in the present revision; the
Supreme Court framed two questions of law
in Paragraph - 2 to the following effect:

 "2. Two important questions of
law arise for consideration in this appeal.
The first question is whether an order of
the
Appointing
Authority
granting
sanction for prosecution of a public
servant under Section 19 of the Prevention
of Corruption Act, 1988, would be
rendered illegal on the ground of acting as
per dictation if it consults the Central
Vigilance Commission for its decision.
The second question is whether the period
of three months (extendable by one more
month for legal consultation) for the
Appointing Authority to decide upon a
request for sanction is mandatory or not. The
further question in this context, is whether the
criminal proceedings can be quashed if the
decision is not taken within the mandatory
period."
7 All. Sanjaya Dikshit Vs. C.B.I.
745
24. We are not concerned in the
present case with regard to the second
question framed by the Supreme Court,
however, the first question completely
arises in the present case.

25. The Supreme Court noticed the
scheme of the Act and the legislative
changes made in the CVC Act; the
Supreme Court also noticed that the five
legislations on the subject of corruption,
operate
as
integrated
scheme.
The
observations of the Supreme Court are as
under:

 "18. It is evident from the above
referred formulation that the position of
law and the legal regime obtained by virtue
of the five legislations on the subject of
corruption, operates as integrated scheme.
The five legislations being the Cr.P.C,
DSPE Act, PC Act, CVC Act, and Lokpal
Act, must be read together to enable the
authorities to sub-serve the common
purpose and objectives underlying these
legislations.
The
Central
Vigilance
Commission, constituted under the CVC
Act is specifically entrusted with the duty
and function of providing expert advice on
the subject. It may be necessary for the
appointing authority to call for and seek
the opinion of the CVC before it takes any
decision on the request for sanction for
prosecution.