Prosecution Of Public Servant For Corruption Involves Public Interest, Delayed Sanction Doesn't Automatically Invalidate Proceedings: Jharkhand HC

While emphasizing that non-compliance with the mandatory period for granting sanction to prosecute a public servant should not automatically lead to the quashing of criminal proceedings, especially when the case involves the prosecution of a public servant for corruption, the Jharkhand High Court has dismissed the petition filed by Upendra Nath Mandal, the Former Senior Manager of MECON Ltd, seeking to quash the sanction order for his prosecution under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. In the order taking cognizance, the Court observed that it was reflected that the Proprietor of M/s Zeal India Chemicals, Ranchi and Proprietor of M/s Shiv Machine Tools, Chennai had participated and gotten selected and during the same the petitioner was prepared the technical specification and tender appraisal report of the said project after receipt of the bids from the above said firms and he passed the drawing and design of machines submitted by both the firms. However, the Court further observed that the above said firms were not eligible for the said work, but they got selected by undue advantage extended by this petitioner to these firms being a public servant and in lieu of that the above said firms transferred the alleged illegal gratifications through the RTGS on different dates through different Bank accounts existing with the SBI, Bank of India, UBI, Axis Bank into the account of this petitioner and the names of other beneficiaries have also been disclosed in the order taking cognizance. In the order of granting sanction, the Chairman-cum-Managing Director, has discussed entire facts and has come to the conclusion that there is need of prosecution of the petitioner and that’s why the sanction order has been passed.” The Court opined, Further, this is not the case of the petitioner that the person, who has passed the sanction order, was not the competent authority, it is the duty of the courts to see that the perpetrators of crime are punished, if offence against them are proved and the accused would get the sufficient opportunities to prove his innocence during the trial.” “The competent authority is only required to consider whether materials placed by complainant or investigating agency prime facie discloses commission of an offence and a detailed inquiry is not required at the time of passing the order for sanction of prosecution under the Prevention of Corruption Act.