Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 – s.13(2) r/w. s.13(1)(e) – Allegation that appellant was hoarding assets disproportionate to his income – FIR registered u/ss.13(2) r/w. s.13(1)(e) of the PC Act – State Government granted sanction to prosecute the respondent – After investigation, charge-sheet was filed – Discharge application filed by the respondent – Application dismissed by the Special Court – Revision Petition was also dismissed by the High Court – However, respondent again filed a petition u/s.482 CrPC within 7 months before the High Court virtually on same grounds – This time, the High Court quashed criminal proceedings u/s.13(2) r/w. s.13(1)(e) of the PC Act – Correctness:
Held: It is not disputed that in the instant case, the Special Court, as well as the High Court, while dismissing the petition for discharge, examined the allegations and arrived at clear findings that there was a prima facie case against the respondent – The impugned order revisits the earlier decisions without any statable change in the facts and circumstances of the case, traverses to the extreme end of the spectrum – It is clear that the High Court jumped to the probable conclusion of trial by not appreciating the limited scope of s.482 CrPC – Apart from being congruent and overlapping, the respondent could not demonstrate any material change in facts and circumstances between the dismissal of the revision petition by the High Court and the filing of the quashing petition u/s.482 CrPC – As far as the validity of sanction is concerned, the validity of the sanction can always be examined during the course of the trial and the problems due to the typographical error as alleged by the State could have been explained by producing the file at the time of trial – It is settled that a mere delay in the grant of sanction for prosecuting a public authority is not a ground to quash a criminal case – Thus, the reasoning adopted by the High Court for interdicting the criminal proceedings is contrary to the well-established principles laid down by this Court. [Paras 10, 14, 15]
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Headnotes prepared by: Ankit Gyan. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.