All You Need To Know About Prosecution Sanction [Part-III]

NO SANCTION REQUIRED WHERE PUBLIC SERVANT IS HOLDING AN OFFICE OTHER THAN THE PARTICULAR OFFICE HE HAD ABUSED No sanction is required in case of abuse of a particular office and the accused public servant is not continuing in that office or is holding an altogether different office 2 SCC 183 = AIR 1984 SC 684 - 5 Judges; Habibulla Khan v. State of Orissa -. NO SANCTION REQUIRED WHERE PUBLIC SERVANT IS HOLDING AN OFFICE OTHER THAN THE PARTICULAR OFFICE HE HAD ABUSED No sanction is required in case of abuse of a particular office and the accused public servant is not continuing in that office or is holding an altogether different office 2 SCC 183 = AIR 1984 SC 684 - 5 Judges; Habibulla Khan v. State of Orissa - 2 SCC 437 = AIR 1995 SC 1124; Parkash Singh Badal v. State of Punjab 1 SCC 1; K. Karunakaran v. State of Kerala 1 SCC 59; Shankar Raju v. Union of India 2 SCC 132; Abhay Singh Chautala v. CBI 7 SCC 141); Kalicharan Mahapatra v. State of Orissa 6 SCC 411 = AIR 1998 SC 2595; State of Kerala v. M. Manikantan Nair 4 SCC 752 = AIR 2001 SC 2145; State of HP v. M.P.Gupta 2 SCC 349 = AIR 2004 SC 730; M.P. Provisions regarding sanction must be observed with complete strictness keeping in mind the public interest on the one hand and the protection available to the accused on the other.. Where the facts constituting the offence have not been set out in the order sanctioning the prosecution and no extraneous evidence to prove that the facts constituting the offence were placed before the Sanctioning Authority, the sanction granted is not valid.. K. SANCTION GIVEN BY THE AUTHORITY SUPERIOR TO THE COMPETENT AUTHORITY, VALID Prosecution Sanction must be given by an authority competent to remove the accused from the office. This could be proved in the Court by the prosecution in two ways, either i) by producing the original sanction order which itself may contain the facts constituting the offence and the ground of satisfaction, or ii) by producing evidence aliunde to show that the facts constituting the offence were placed before the sanctioning authority and the requisite satisfaction was arrived at with reference to those facts 4 SCC 172 = AIR 1979 SC 677; Ramesh Lal Jain v. Naginder Singh Rana 1 SCC 294 = AIR 2006 SC 336). Sehgal 8 SCC 501=AIR 1999 SC 3706; Paul Varghese V. State of Kerala 14 SCC 783=AIR 2007 SC 2618; Parkash Singh Badal V. State of Punjab 1 SCC 1=AIR 2007 SC 1274; Ashok Tshering Bhutia V. State of Sikkim 4 SCC 402; State of Bihar V. Rajmangal Ram AIR 2014 SC 1674; Nanjappa V. State of Karnrtaka AIR 2015 SC 3060, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, adverting to the above provisions of law, held that in the absence of proof of any failure of justice resulting from any error or illegality in the grant of sanction or even an omission to grant sanction, the conviction recorded by the Court below will not be vitiated.