SATYA NARAYAN JHA v. THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS

application that earlier he had challenged the rejection of discharge petition in the High Court of Judicature at Ranchi which was dismissed on 3.2.2005. In the aforesaid application, he had not raised the issue that sanction was granted without there being any material worth the name before the sanctioning authority. The petitioner has recently come to learn that though the notice on the concerned file was in his favour, still in absence of any incriminating material, sanctioned was accorded. He stated that in fact, the notings in the file did not recommend sanction against the petitioner. A copy of the notings has been annexed as Annexure-5 series to this petition. He submits that the Secretary and other officers of Government of Bihar specifically stated in their 4 notes that the C.B.I. has not been able to clarify its allegations against the petitioner and as such they did not recommend for according sanctioned against him. However, the then Chief Minister, Bihar granted approval for granting sanction against the petitioner though there was recommendation for granting sanction against only Laxmi Narayan Singh and Sutgan Hansda. Thus the case of the petitioner in short is that sanctioned has been granted for his prosecution in most casual manner and without any consideration of the materials collected by the C.B.I. In support of his contention the learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon decisions in the case of Mansukh Lal Vithaldas Chauhan Vs State of Gujrat, A.I.R. 1997 SC 3400 as well as in the case of Md. Ekbal Ahmad Vs State of A.P., 1979 SC 677. Both the State and the C.B.I. filed their respective counter affidavits. The State submitted that criminal cases has been instituted as improper and forged bills have been passed by the accused persons including the petitioner which is now subject of trial before the Special Judge, Vigilance, in the State of Jharkhand. The C.B.I. in paragraph 6 stated that the charges have been framed against the petitioner and others on 19.1.1994 by Special Judge, C.B.I., Ranchi, and more than 93 witnesses have already been examined and the prosecution evidence is on verge of completion. The respondents also challenged the maintainability of this writ petition before this court as trial is going on at Jharkhand. It would be useful to quote the relevant extract of 5 paragraph 7 of the counter affidavit filed by the C.B.I. on 6.1.2009. “7. That the answering respondent no.5 is filling this short counter affidavit to decide the preliminary objection regarding territorial jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Court because, after bifurcation of State of Bihar and subsequent creation of the State of Jharkhand which is in existence with effect from

15.11.2000, all the cases relating to treasuries which fall in the jurisdiction of Jharkhand State, stand transferred to the Jharkhand State. Moreover 93 prosecution witnesses have already been examined by the Special Judge at Ranchi and the prosecution evidence is on the verge of completion”. There cannot be any dispute to the proposition that the grant of sanction is not an ideal formality or acrimonious exercise but a solemn and sacrosanct act which affords protection to Govt servant against frivolous prosecution. It must strictly conform to requirements necessary for according a valid sanction and there has to be some material basis for according grant of sanction. A sanction granted in absence of any material cannot be said to be a valid sanction and the consequent prosecution could be an abuse of process of court. The Apex court in case of M.V.Chauhan verses State of Gujarat, reported in AIR 1997 SC 3400 held in para 19 of the judgment as follows:-

19. “Since the validity of Section depends on 6 the applicability of mind by the sanctioning authority to the facts of the case as also the material and evidence collected during investigation, it necessarily follows that the sanctioning authority has to apply its own independent mind for the generation of genuine satisfaction whether prosecution has to be sanctioned or not.” Coming back to the instant case it appears order of sanction was granted on 10.12.1999 under the signature of Secretary, Department of Law, Govt of Bihar. In its affidavit dated

6.1.200, contained in para 7, the CBI has stated that as many as 93 witnesses have been examined and the prosecution evidence is on the verge of completion. This Court does not think it appropriate to interfere with the order of sanction at this belated stage as the explanation given for challenging the order of sanction after long nine years do not appear convincing. The petitioner can take all these points in the trial itself. As this court has declined to quash the order granting sanction, I do not find it expedient to go into the issue of maintainability. With the aforesaid observations, this writ Shashi/KHAN application is disposed of. (Samarendra Pratap Singh,J)