Himachal Pradesh High Court
Chander Shekhar vs State Of Himachal Pradesh And Others on 14 July, 2025
Author: Ajay Mohan Goel
Bench: Ajay Mohan Goel
( 2025:HHC:25368 )
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT
SHIMLA
CWP No. 13535 of 2024
.
Reserved on : 26.06.2025
Decided on : 14.07.2025
Chander Shekhar
...Petitioner.
-Versus-
State of Himachal Pradesh and others
...Respondents.
Coram
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge
Whether approved for reporting?1 Yes.
For the petitioner : Mr. R.K. Bawa, Senior Advocate,
with Mr. Neel Kamal Sharma,
Advocate.
For the respondents : Mr. Pushpinder Jaswal, Additional
Advocate General, for respondent
No.1.
Mr. Janesh Mahajan, Advocate, for
respondent No.2.
M/s Sartej Singh Narula, B.S. Dogra,
Sakshi Sharma and Ravi Tanta,
Advocates, for respondent No.3.
Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge:
By way of this writ petition, the petitioner originally,
inter alia, prayed for the following reliefs:-
1Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
::: Downloaded on – 01/08/2025 21:18:11 :::CIS
2
( 2025:HHC:25368 )
“i. That a writ in the nature of certiorari
may kindly be issued and the impugned
letter/office order dated 12.10.2017 as contained.
in Annexure P-10, may kindly be quashed and
set aside being illegal.
ii. That a writ in the nature of
mandamus may kindly be issued and the
respondent No.1 may kindly be directed to grant
sanction to the CBI for prosecuting therespondent No.3 under the prevention of
corruption Act in case RCCHG2017A0013 CBICourt, Chandigarh.”
2. Thereafter, an amendment was sought by the
petitioner in the writ petition, which was allowed by this Court
on 14.05.2025 and in terms of the amended writ petition, the
petitioner has, inter alia, now prayed for the following reliefs:-
“(i) That a writ in the nature of certiorari
may kindly be issued and the impugned
order/letter dated 12.10.2017, as contained inAnnexure P-10 and the impugned order dated
17.11.2022 as contained in Annexure P-12 may
kindly be quashed and set aside, being illegal.
(ii) That a writ in the nature of
mandamus may be issued and the respondent
No. 1 may kindly be directed to review its orders::: Downloaded on – 01/08/2025 21:18:11 :::CIS
3
( 2025:HHC:25368 )
dated 12.10.2017 and 17.11.2022 and pass
appropriate orders for grant of sanction to
prosecute respondent No. 3 under the provisions.
of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 in Case
RCCHG2017A0013 pending before learned
Special Judge, CBI Court, Chandigarh after
application of mind and on the basis of entire
material placed on record by the prosecuting
agency.
3.
The case of the petitioner is that on 27.05.2017, he
filed a complaint with the Central Bureau of Investigation, ACB
Chandigarh Branch on the allegation of demand of bribe of
Rs.10,00,000/- by respondent No.3, who then happened to be
Joint Director of Single Window Clearance Agency, Baddi and
against one Ashok Rana, a private person, who was the
proprietor of a Firm, i.e., M/s Rana Packaging, Plot No. 17,
Industrial Area, Lodhi Majra, Baddi, for processing and
recommending the case of M/s Medicef Pharma, for the
approval of a subsidy of Rs. 50,00,000/-.
4. As per the petitioner, he was a Chartered
Accountant and was providing service as a Consultant to M/s
Medicef Pharma, Baddi. In this capacity, he submitted the
::: Downloaded on – 01/08/2025 21:18:11 :::CIS
4
( 2025:HHC:25368 )
subsidy file of M/s Medicef Pharma in the office of respondent
No. 3 for clearing 15% capital investment on the new
.
machinery to be installed in the factory of M/s Medicef Pharma
on 28.03.2017, as per the Policy of the Government of India.
He visited the office of the Department of Industries, Baddi on
many occasions and also met respondent No.3 for processing
the file of M/s Medicef Pharma so as to claim the subsidy of Rs.
50,00,000/-.
5. to
According to the petitioner, respondent No.3 asked
him to contact Ashok Rana on his mobile, who was to inform
the petitioner regarding the amount of bribe to be paid by the
petitioner for getting the work done qua subsidy claim.
According to the petitioner, he was duly authorized by M/s
Medicef Pharma, Baddi to submit the application to claim
subsidy with the Department of Industries and also pursue the
said case on its behalf. As per the petitioner, in the complaint,
which was submitted by him to the Central Bureau of
Investigation (hereinafter referred to as “the CBI”), it was
mentioned that respondent No.3 had issued a notice dated
19.05.2017 to M/s Medicef Pharma, Baddi, which was received
::: Downloaded on – 01/08/2025 21:18:11 :::CIS
5
( 2025:HHC:25368 )
by M/s Medicef Pharma, Baddi on 22.05.2017. In terms of this
notice, M/s Medicef Pharma, Baddi was directed to inform
.
whether it had made substantial extension of their Unit at Baddi
or not. According to the petitioner, relevant documents in this
regard already stood submitted by the petitioner in the office of
respondent No.3, on 28.03.2017. As per the petitioner, he had
telephonic conversations on 19.05.2017 and 22.05.2017 with
Ashok Rana on his mobile number and Ashok Rana informed
him that respondent No.3 had directed the petitioner to pay
Rs. 10,00,000/- as bribe to get the work of the subsidy claim
done.
6. On the basis of the complaint of the petitioner,
investigation was carried out by CBI and thereafter, a trap was
laid. Respondent No.3 and Ashok Rana were caught red-
handed while accepting bribe amounting to Rs. 5,00,000/- at
Chandigarh. An FIR was registered and after investigation was
carried out, a final report was submitted under Section 173 of
the Criminal Procedure Code, before the Court of learned
Special Judge, CBI, Chandigarh. Two reports, i.e., report dated
28.07.2017 along-with supplementary final report dated
::: Downloaded on – 01/08/2025 21:18:11 :::CIS
6
( 2025:HHC:25368 )
31.10.2023, are appended with the petition as Annexure P-1
and Annexure P-2. Both respondent No. 3 and Ashok Rana
.
were booked under Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code
and Sections 7 and 13 (2), read with Section 13(1)(d) of the
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as
“the 1988 Act”).
7. Further, as per the petitioner, thereafter, CBI sent a
letter to respondent No.1, i.e. Principal Secretary, Industries, on
27.07.2017, in terms whereof, prosecution sanction was sought
against respondent No. 3 in terms of the provisions of Section
19 of the 1988 Act.
8. It is averred in Paragraph No.8 of the writ petition
that after registration of the FIR and after completion of the
investigation, the petitioner was not aware about further
proceedings because thereafter, he was never
associated/informed by the CBI or by the learned Trial Court
with respect to further proceedings of the case in hand.
9. In Paragraph No.-9 of the writ petition, it is
mentioned that amazingly the petitioner received a notice dated
28.03.2024 from the Court of learned Special Judge, CBI-
::: Downloaded on – 01/08/2025 21:18:11 :::CIS
7
( 2025:HHC:25368 )
PMLA-NIA Court, Chandigarh, on 04.04.2024, vide which, he
was directed to appear before the said Court on 10.04.2024 at
.
10:00 am, with regard to the discharge of one of the accused
by the CBI. A copy of the notice is appended with the petition as
Annexure P-3.
10. According to the petitioner, pursuant to the said
notice, he appeared before the Court of learned Special Judge,
CBI, Chandigarh and came to know that Prosecuting Agency
had moved an application for discharging respondent No. 3 for
want of sanction from respondent No.1 to prosecute him.
Thereafter, the petitioner obtained the copy of application dated
29.05.2017, filed by the CBI, in terms whereof, discharge of
respondent No. 3 was prayed. Thereafter, he filed an
application before learned Special Judge, Chandigarh on
25.04.2024, requesting the learned Court to supply all relevant
documents including statements of witnesses in the case to
him. Learned Special Judge passed order dated 25.04.2024
directing Public Prosecutor to supply the remaining documents
to the petitioner and thereafter, the case was listed on
08.07.2024. Learned trial Court passed various orders directing
::: Downloaded on – 01/08/2025 21:18:11 :::CIS
8
( 2025:HHC:25368 )
Public Prosecutor to supply remaining documents to the
petitioner. As per the petitioner, he was never supplied certain
.
documents sought by him and ultimately, vide order dated
07.10.2024, the Public Prosecutor was directed to supply some
of the documents and the request of the petitioner for the
supply of certain other documents was declined.
11. It is further the case of the petitioner that he came to
know about order dated 12.10.2017 passed by respondent
No.1, vide which, sanction to prosecute respondent No.3 was
refused only when documents were supplied to him after
25.04.2024. As per the averments made in the writ petition, the
petitioner thereafter could not approach this Court immediately
for the reason that on one hand, he was hoping that the trial
Court below will pass an order directing the supply of remaining
documents to him, which request of his was ultimately refused
on 07.10.2024 and on the other hand, he was not feeling well
since he was suffering from Dengue. He came to Shimla on
25.11.2024, contacted his counsel and thereafter, filed the
petition assailing the order, in terms whereof, the prosecution
sanction was refused by respondent No.1, so as to prosecute
::: Downloaded on – 01/08/2025 21:18:11 :::CIS
9
( 2025:HHC:25368 )
respondent No.3.
12. During the pendency of this writ petition, the
.
petitioner filed an application under Order VI, Rule 17 of the
Code of Civil Procedure, i.e., CMP No. 542 of 2025, which was
filed in the Court on 2nd January, 2025. It was averred in the
said application that after filing of the writ petition, the petitioner
had received copies of order dated 17.11.2022, passed by
respondent No. 1, in terms whereof, respondent No. 1 had
decided to reiterate its earlier decision dated 12.10.2017
refusing to grant prosecution sanction in favour of respondent
No. 3. In terms of the averments made in the application, it was
stated by the petitioner that he received the copy of order dated
17.11.2022 after the filing of the petition and, therefore, it was
necessary for the petitioner to amend the writ petition, as he
intended to assail order dated 17.11.2022 before this Court.
Said application was allowed by this Court vide order dated
14.05.2025 and the petitioner was permitted to amend the writ
petition, whereafter, he also assailed order dated 17.11.2022
alongwith order dated 12.10.2017.
13. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner
::: Downloaded on – 01/08/2025 21:18:11 :::CIS
10
( 2025:HHC:25368 )
vehemently argued that the impugned orders passed by the
Statutory Authority are not sustainable in law. He submitted that
.
the competent Authority ignored the material which was there
on record as well as the seriousness of the allegations and
assumed that simply because the other private accused was in
possession of the money and respondent No.3 was not in
actual possession thereof, therefore, he was not guilty of the
offence alleged against him. He submitted that there is no
application of mind by the Authority while passing the orders
and the Authority has not only ignored the intent and purpose of
the provisions of Section 19 of the 1988 Act, but has also
assumed upon itself the jurisdiction to decide the innocence of
the accused, which was not the job of the Authority. He
submitted that all that the Authority was to consider at the stage
of grant of sanction, was as to whether there was prima facie
any merit in the allegations and as indeed, prima facie, there
was merit in the allegations, which was also evident from the
fact that after the matter was reported to the CBI and after
investigation was carried by it, it submitted its final report before
the learned Special Judge, which justified the allegations made
::: Downloaded on – 01/08/2025 21:18:11 :::CIS
11
( 2025:HHC:25368 )
against respondent No.3, brushing aside of all these facts by
the competent Authority is not only bad in law, but by refusing
.
grant of sanction in the present case, grave injustice has been
done to the complainant by the competent Authority.
14. Learned Senior Counsel further submitted that
premium has been given to the dishonest act of the private
respondent, who is saved from prosecution just because of the
non-grant of the prosecution sanction. He submitted that the
provisions of Section 19 of the 1988 Act, have been used as a
tool by the competent Authority to shield a corrupt Officer and
there are smacks of legal mala-fides which entail indulgence of
this Court. He also submitted that in the facts of the case, there
was no option with the authority, but to grant prosecution
sanction. He submitted that twice CBI approached the
competent Authority to grant prosecution sanction and twice the
same was refused, just with the intent to save the private
respondent. Accordingly, he submitted that as the refusal of the
prosecution sanction is totally illegal and not in consonance
with the law declared by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India,
on Section 19 of the 1988 Act, the impugned orders were liable
::: Downloaded on – 01/08/2025 21:18:11 :::CIS
12
( 2025:HHC:25368 )
to be set aside and this Court should issue a direction to the
competent Authority to grant prosecution sanction.
.
15. On the other hand, learned Additional Advocate
General and learned counsel for the private respondent argued
that there was no merit in the writ petition. By referring to the
reply filed by the respondent-State, he submitted that the main
order of rejection was passed by the competent Authority on
17.11.2022 and the petitioner had assailed the same after a
delay of 7 years, for which, no tenable explanation was placed
on record and, therefore, the petition was liable to be dismissed
on the ground of delays and latches. They further submitted
that the contention of the petitioner that he was unaware of the
refusal of sanction vide order dated 12.10.2017 is completely
incorrect and misleading, as it is evident from the bare perusal
of the petition and Annexures appended therewith that the
petitioner was aware of the refusal of the prosecution sanction.
They further submitted that the petitioner was guilty of
suppression of material facts as he had suppressed this fact
from the Court that in terms of order dated 27.11.2024, passed
by learned Special Judge, CBI Court, Shimla, in case titled CBI
::: Downloaded on – 01/08/2025 21:18:11 :::CIS
13
( 2025:HHC:25368 )
Vs. Tilak, Raj Sharma and others, for the reason of want of
sanction, respondent No. 3 stood discharged. They also argued
.
that in the present case, the petitioner had levelled allegations
against a Government Servant, i.e., respondent No.3 of
corruption, while he was holding the post of Joint Director,
Single Window Clearance Agency of Industries Department at
Baddi, on the false allegation that he had demanded bribe in
order to release subsidy in favour of one M/s Medicef Pharma,
without realizing that Joint Director Industries was only
processing/recommending Agency for cases of Central
Investment Subsidy. Respondent No. 3 was not the Authority
who was to take the final decision in the matter and he simply
was to forward the case after completion of codal formalities for
the sanction of Central Capital Investment Subsidy to the
Director of Industries, Shimla, which Authority thereafter, after
again examining the file, was to place the same before State
Level Committee with his recommendations for the grant of
Central Capital Investment Subsidy.
16. They further submitted that in this case, the case of
M/s Medicef Pharma was forwarded by Joint Director, Single
::: Downloaded on – 01/08/2025 21:18:11 :::CIS
14
( 2025:HHC:25368 )
Window Clearance Agency and when the matter was placed
before the State Level Committee, the same was rejected as
.
the file was incomplete. They further apprised the Court that the
application of the company was rejected on 05.03.2019, in
which respondent No. 3 had no role to play. They further
argued that as the sanction was sought by CBI and as CBI had
chosen not to assail the refusal of sanction by the competent
Authority, the petitioner had no locus to assail the same. They
further argued that there was due application of mind while
refusing the sanction by the competent Authority and because
in the facts of the case, the competent Authority came to the
conclusion that prosecution sanction was not required, the
decision of the competent Authority being a decision taken in
exercise of Statutory Power conferred upon it and in the
performance of a Statutory duty cast upon it, has to be
respected, more so, in the light of the fact that no allegation of
mala-fide etc., is there against the Authority concerned. They
also argued that reasons stood spelled out by the competent
Authority as to why the prosecution sanction was refused in
both the orders and as the reasons are clearly borne out from
::: Downloaded on – 01/08/2025 21:18:11 :::CIS
15
( 2025:HHC:25368 )
the record of the case, the same do not call for any interference
by this Court in exercise of its power of judicial review.
.
17. They further submitted that hundreds of applications
were filed before respondent No.3 by companies for forwarding
their cases for the grant of subsidy which were dealt with by
respondent No.3 as per Rules and procedure and no allegation
except one raised by the petitioner on behalf of the company
which was being represented by him, was levelled against
respondent No.3. They submitted that in the light of the fact that
no power was vested in respondent No.3 to grant subsidy,
there was no occasion for anyone to oblige respondent No.3 by
paying him any bribe to have its case sanctioned for the grant
of subsidy. Accordingly, they prayed that as there was no merit
in the case of the petitioner, the same was liable to be
dismissed.
18. I have heard learned Senior Counsel for the
petitioner as well as learned Additional Advocate General,
learned counsel for CBI and learned counsel for the private
respondent and have also carefully gone through the impugned
orders as well as the pleadings and documents appended
::: Downloaded on – 01/08/2025 21:18:11 :::CIS
16
( 2025:HHC:25368 )
therewith.
19. At this stage, this Court would like to refer to the
.
pronouncements of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India relied
upon by the learned counsel for the parties, relating to the
scope of interference with regard to the decision of the
Authority qua the grant of prosecution sanction or refusal
thereof.
20.
In Mansukhlal Vithalds Chauhan Vs. State of
Gujarat, (1997) 7 Supreme Court Cases 622, Hon’ble Supreme
Court after referring to its earlier judgments reiterated that
prosecution sanction is not intended to be nor is an automatic
formality and it is essential that the provisions in regard to
sanction should be observed with complete strictness. Hon’ble
Supreme Court further held that sanction lifts the bar for
prosecution and grant of sanction is not idle formality or an
acrimonious exercise but a solemn and sacrosanct act which
affords protection to Government servant against frivolous
prosecution. Sanction is a weapon to ensure discouragement of
frivolous and vexatious prosecutions and is a safeguard for the
innocent but not a shield for the guilty. Thereafter, in Para-18
::: Downloaded on – 01/08/2025 21:18:11 :::CIS
17
( 2025:HHC:25368 )
and 19 of the said judgment, Hon’ble Supreme Court was
pleased to hold as under:-
.
“18. The validity of the sanction would,
therefore, depend upon the material placed
before the sanctioning authority and the fact thatall the relevant facts, material and evidence have
been considered by the sanctioning authority.
Consideration implies application of mind. Theorder of sanction must ex facie disclose that the
sanctioning authority had considered the
evidence and other material placed before it.
This fact can also be established by extrinsic
evidence by placing the relevant files before the
Court to show that all relevant facts wereconsidered by the sanctioning authority. (See
also: Jaswant Singh vs. The State of Punjab,1958 SCR 762 = AIR 1958 SC 12; State of Bihar
& Anr. vs. P.P. Sharma, 1991 Cr.L.J. 1438 (SC)).
19. Since the validity of “Sanction” depends on
the applicability of mind by the sanctioningauthority 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 genuie
satisfaction whether prosecution has to be::: Downloaded on – 01/08/2025 21:18:11 :::CIS
18
( 2025:HHC:25368 )
sanctioned or not. The mind of the sanctioning
authority should not be under pressure from any
quarter nor should any external force be acting.
upon it to take decision one way or the other.
Since the discretion to grant or not to grant
sanction vests absolutely in the sanctioningauthority, its discretion should be shown to have
not been affected by any extraneous
consideration. If is shown that the sanctioningauthority was unable to apply its independent
mind for any reason whatsoever or was under anobligation or compulsion or constraint to grant
the sanction, the order will be had for the reason
that the discretion of the authority “not to
sanction” was taken away and it was compelledto act mechanically to sanction the prosecution.”
21. In Vineet Narain and others Vs. Union of India and
another (1998) 1 Supreme Court Cases 226, Hon’ble Supreme
Court was pleased to hold that holders of public offices are
entrusted with certain powers to be exercised in public interest
alone and, therefore, the office is held by them in trust for the
people. Any deviation from the path of rectitude by any of them
amounts to a breach of trust and must be severely dealt with
instead of being pushed under the carpet. If the conduct
::: Downloaded on – 01/08/2025 21:18:11 :::CIS
19
( 2025:HHC:25368 )
amounts to an offence, it must be promptly investigated and the
offender against whom a prima facie case is made out should
.
be prosecuted expeditiously so that the majesty of law is
upheld and the rule of law vindicated. Hon’ble Supreme Court
also held that it is duty of the judiciary to enforce the rule of law
and, therefore, to guard against erosion of the rule of law.
22. In State of Karnataka Vs. Ameerjan (2007) 11
Supreme Court Cases 273, Hon’ble Supreme Court was
pleased to hold that ordinarily the sanctioning Authority is best
person to judge as to whether the public servant concerned
should receive the protection under the Act by refusing to
accord sanction for his prosecution or not. For the
aforementioned purpose, indisputably, application of mind on
the part of the sanctioning authority is imperative. The order
granting sanction must be demonstrative of the fact that there
had been proper application of mind on the part of the
sanctioning authority.
23. In Central Bureau of Investigation Vs. Ashok Kumar
Aggarwal (2014) 14 Supreme Court Cases 295, Hon’ble
Supreme Court was pleased to hold as under:-
::: Downloaded on – 01/08/2025 21:18:11 :::CIS
20
( 2025:HHC:25368 )
“13. The prosecution has to satisfy the
court that at the time of sending the matter for
grant of sanction by the competent authority,.
adequate material for such grant was made
available to the said authority. This may also be
evident from the sanction order, in case it is
extremely comprehensive, as all the facts and
circumstances of the case may be spelt out in
the sanction order. However, in every individual
case, the court has to find out whether there has
been an application of mind on the part of the
sanctioning authority concerned on the material
placed before it. It is so necessary for the reason
that there is an obligation on the sanctioning
authority to discharge its duty to give or withhold
sanction only after having full knowledge of the
material facts of the case. Grant of sanction is
not a mere formality. Therefore, the provisions in
regard to the sanction must be observed with
complete strictness keeping in mind the public
interest and the protection available to the
accused against whom the sanction is sought.
14. It is to be kept in mind that sanction
lifts the bar for prosecution. Therefore, it is not an
acrimonious exercise but a solemn and
sacrosanct act which affords protection to the
government servant against frivolous
::: Downloaded on – 01/08/2025 21:18:11 :::CIS
21
( 2025:HHC:25368 )
prosecution. Further, it is a weapon to
discourage vexatious prosecution and is a
safeguard for the innocent, though not a shield
.
for the guilty.”
24. In Subramanian Swamy Vs. Manmohan Singh and
another (2012) 3 Supreme Court Cases 64, Hon’ble Supreme
Court was pleased to hold as under:-
“44. We may also observe that grant or
refusal of sanction is not a quasi judicial function
and the person for whose prosecution thesanction is sought is not required to be heard by
the Competent Authority before it takes a
decision in the matter. What is required to be
seen by the Competent Authority is whether thefacts placed before it which, in a given case, may
include the material collected by the complainantor the investigating agency prima facie disclose
commission of an offence by a public servant. If
the Competent Authority is satisfied that thematerial placed before it is sufficient for
prosecution of the public servant, then it is
required to grant sanction. If the satisfaction of
the Competent Authority is otherwise, then it can
refuse sanction. In either case, the decision
taken on the complaint made by a citizen is
required to be communicated to him and if he::: Downloaded on – 01/08/2025 21:18:11 :::CIS
22
( 2025:HHC:25368 )
feels aggrieved by such decision, then he can
avail appropriate legal remedy.
... ... ... .... ... ... ...
.
74. Keeping those principles in mind, as
we must, if we look at Section 19 of the P.C. Act
which bars a Court from taking cognizance ofcases of corruption against a public servant
under Sections 7, 10, 11, 13 and 15 of the Act,
unless the Central or the State Government, asthe case may be, has accorded sanction,
virtually imposes fetters on private citizens andalso on prosecutors from approaching Court
against corrupt public servants. These
protections are not available to other citizens.
Public servants are treated as a special class ofpersons enjoying the said protection so that they
can perform their duties without fear and favourand without threats of malicious prosecution.
However, the said protection against maliciousprosecution which was extended in public
interest cannot become a shield to protectcorrupt officials. These provisions being
exceptions to the equality provision of Article 14
are analogous to provisions of protective
discrimination and these protections must be
construed very narrowly. These procedural
provisions relating to sanction must be construed::: Downloaded on – 01/08/2025 21:18:11 :::CIS
23
( 2025:HHC:25368 )
in such a manner as to advance the causes of
honesty and justice and good governance as
opposed to escalation of corruption.
.
75. Therefore, in every case where an
application is made to an appropriate authority
for grant of prosecution in connection with anoffence under P.C. Act it is the bounden duty of
such authority to apply its mind urgently to the
situation and decide the issue without beinginfluenced by any extraneous consideration. In
doing so, the authority must make a consciouseffort to ensure the rule of law and cause of
justice is advanced. In considering the question
of granting or refusing such sanction, the
authority is answerable to law and law alone.
Therefore, the requirement to take the decision
with a reasonable dispatch is of the essence insuch a situation. Delay in granting sanction
proposal thwarts a very valid social purpose,namely, the purpose of a speedy trial with the
requirement to bring the culprit to book.
Therefore, in this case the right of the
sanctioning authority, while either sanctioning or
refusing to grant sanction, is coupled with a duty.
76. The sanctioning authority must bear
in mind that what is at stake is the public
confidence in the maintenance of rule of law::: Downloaded on – 01/08/2025 21:18:11 :::CIS
24
( 2025:HHC:25368 )
which is fundamental in the administration of
justice. Delay in granting such sanction has spoilt
many valid prosecution and is adversely viewed.
in public mind that in the name of considering a
prayer for sanction, a protection is given to a
corrupt public official as a quid pro quo forservices rendered by the public official in the
past or may be in the future and the sanctioning
authority and the corrupt officials were or arepartners in the same misdeeds. I may hasten to
add that this may not be factual position in thisbut the general demoralizing effect of such a
popular perception is profound and pernicious.”
25. Thus it is evident from the judgments referred to
hereinabove, that grant of sanction to prosecute a public
servant lifts the bar for prosecution and, therefore, it is not an
acrimonious exercise but a solemn and sacrosanct act which
affords protection to the Government servant against frivolous
prosecution. It is a weapon to discourage vexatious prosecution
and is a safeguard for the innocent though not a shield for the
guilty. Hon’ble Supreme Court has been further pleased to hold
that the order passed by the Authority must ex facie disclose
that the sanctioning Authority had considered the evidence and
::: Downloaded on – 01/08/2025 21:18:11 :::CIS
25
( 2025:HHC:25368 )
other material placed before it. Hon’ble Supreme Court has
also held that it is an obligation on the sanctioning Authority to
.
discharge its duty to give or withhold sanction only after having
full knowledge of the material facts of the case and grant of
sanction is not a mere formality. Therefore, the provisions in
regard to the sanction must be observed with complete
strictness keeping in mind the public interest and the protection
available to the accused, against whom the sanction is sought.
In the light of the judgments cited hereinabove this Court would
now proceed with the matter in hand.
26. The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, has been
enacted to consolidate and amend the law relating to the
prevention of corruption and for matters connected therewith.
Section 19 thereof, inter-alia, provides that no Court shall take
cognizance of an offence punishable under Sections 7, 11, 13
and 15 of the 1988 Act 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, 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
::: Downloaded on – 01/08/2025 21:18:11 :::CIS
26
( 2025:HHC:25368 )
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.
27. Thus, for proceeding against a State Government
servant qua commission of offences mentioned in Section 19 of
the 1988 Act, the previous sanction of the State Government is
necessary.
28.
In the present case, the petitioner is aggrieved by
the refusal of the sanction by the Authority for the prosecution
of the private respondent, under Section 19 of the 1988 Act.
Communication dated 12.10.2017, in terms whereof the
prosecution sanction was refused, which led to the filing of this
writ petition, is appended with the petition as Annexure P-10. In
terms of this communication, the competent Authority decided
to deny the sanction to prosecute the private respondent due to
the following reasons:-
“(I) Joint Director Industries is only a
processing/ recommending agency for cases of
Central Investment Subsidy. The final authority to
sanction the cases under the scheme is State
Level Committee (SLC).
(ii) The Government of India releases the
::: Downloaded on – 01/08/2025 21:18:11 :::CIS
27
( 2025:HHC:25368 )
Central Investment Subsidy directly to the eligible
units through Direct Benefit Transfer (DBT) portal
of Government of India.
.
(iii) The case of M/s Medicef Pharma was
under process with the Joint Director of
Industries, SWCA, Baddi and the Firm was asked
by the Joint Director of Industries alongwith
others to submit requisite information vide letter
No. Ind/SWCA/BD/CCIS/SPS/2017/-1186- 237,
dated 19.05.2017. A specific letter was written to
M/s Medicef Pharma on 29.05.2017 to submit 11
documents enabling his office to process the
case.
(iv) Shri Chander Shekhar, the
Complainant (Ref. D-2/1) has claimed in his
complaint dated 27.05.2017 filed before the
Superintendent of Police. CBI. Chandigarh that
he is a Chartered Accountant and providing
services as Consultant to M/s Medicef Pharma
having its factory in Plot No. 28. EPIP, Phase-I,
Jharmajri, Baddi, Dist. Solan (HP). He further
stated in his complaint that he is dealing with the
Olo Joint Director of Industries on behalf of M/s
Medicef Pharma, his client. The document placed
in the case file (Ref. D-47) which is a copy of
authority letter on Medicef Pharma letterhead,
with Bold capital letters M/s Medicef Pharma with
::: Downloaded on – 01/08/2025 21:18:11 :::CIS
28
( 2025:HHC:25368 )
the caption “Authority Letter” executed by one
Shri Vijay Kumar Aggarwal partner of M/s
Medicef Pharma authorizing Chartered
.
Accountant Shri Chander Shekhhar special
attorney on behalf of the Firm for sanction and
release of 15% Capital Investment Subsidy from
Department of Industries, SWCA, Baddi and
Directorate of Industries, Shimla.
After careful scrutiny, it is revealed
that the above Authority Letter is required to be
signed by Shri Vijay Aggarwal since he is
authorising Shri Chander Shekhar special
attorney on behalf of M/s Medicef Pharma.
Whereas, contrary to the above position Shri
Chandra Shekhar has signed as Executant. It
appears that Sh. Chander Shekhar wasn’t
authorised properly to represent the M/s Medicef
Pharma nor authorized Shri Chander Shekhar to
pursue the file to release 15% Capital Investment
Subsidy.
(v) The Joint Director through his office
order dated 27.11.2015 had prohibited entry of
middlemen/unauthorized persons, Accountants/
Advocates/ Private Consultant pursuing
approvals/NOCs and other incentives pertaining
to different industrial units without authenticated
authorization(s). All the concerned entities whose
::: Downloaded on – 01/08/2025 21:18:11 :::CIS
29
( 2025:HHC:25368 )
work and other issues pertaining to the
Department of Industries were pending were
directed to depute their own employees or else,
.
to issue verified authorization for their specific
work. This order seems to have created ill-will for
the Joint Director concerned.
(vi) The inquiry report refers to recovery
of money from the private individual i.e. Sh. No
such recovery was made from Sh. Tilak Raj
Sharma.
(vii)
r In the last, it is worthwhile to point out
that the CBI conducted various searches
including his residence, however, apart from Rs.5
lakhs recovered from Shri Ashok Rana a private
person, nothing has been recovered from Shri
Tilak Raj Sharma, which will goes in favour of
Shri Tilak Raj Sharma.”
29. A perusal of this order demonstrates that what
weighed with the competent Authority while deciding that
sanction was not to be accorded for the prosecution of the
private respondent was that the Joint Director, Industries was
only a processing/recommending agency for the cases of
Central Investment Subsidy and the final Authority to sanction
the cases under the Scheme was with the State Level
::: Downloaded on – 01/08/2025 21:18:11 :::CIS
30
( 2025:HHC:25368 )
Committee; the Government of India released the Central
Investment Subsidy directly to the eligible units through direct
.
benefit transfer portal of Government of India; the case of M/s
Medicef Pharma, was under process with the Joint Director of
Industries, SWCA, Baddi and the Firm was asked by the Joint
Director along-with others to submit their requisite information
vide letter dated 19.05.2017 and on 29.05.2017, a specific
letter was written to M/s Medicef Pharma to submit 11
documents enabling the Office of the Joint Director, Industries
to process the case; complainant Chander Shekhar claimed in
his complaint filed before the Superintendent of Police, CBI that
he was the Chartered Accountant and provided services as
consultant to M/s Medicef Pharma, he further stated in his
complaint that he was dealing with the Office of Joint Director of
Industries on behalf of M/s Medicef Pharma, his client,
however, the Authority letter on which the complainant was
harping upon, was required to be signed by Shri Vijay
Aggarwal, partner of M/s Medicef Pharma, since he was
authorizing the complainant the Special Power of Attorney of
M/s Medicef Pharma, whereas, contrary to the said position,
::: Downloaded on – 01/08/2025 21:18:11 :::CIS
31
( 2025:HHC:25368 )
the complainant had signed the same as an executant, which
demonstrated that complainant Chander Shekhar was not
.
authorized properly to represent M/s Medicef Pharma nor he
was authorized by M/s Medicef Pharma to pursue the file to
release 15% Capital Investment Subsidy; Joint Director through
his Office order dated 27.11.2015, had prohibited entry of
middlemen/unauthorized persons, Accountants/Advocates/
private consultants, pursuing approvals/NOCs and other
incentives pertaining to different industrial units without
authenticated authorization. All the concerned entities whose
work and other issues pertaining to Department of Industries
were pending, were directed to depute their own employees to
issue verified authorization for their specific work and said order
seem to have created ill will for the Joint Director concerned;
Inquiry Report referred to recovery of money from a private
individual namely Ashok Rana and no recovery was made from
Tilak Raj Sharma; CBI conducted various searches including
the residence of the private respondent, however, apart from
Rs. 5,00,000/- recovered from Ashok Rana, a private person,
nothing was recovered from Tilak Raj Sharma, which also goes
::: Downloaded on – 01/08/2025 21:18:11 :::CIS
32
( 2025:HHC:25368 )
in the favour of Tilak Raj Sharma.
30. This communication, as already mentioned above,
.
is dated 12.10.2017, yet the petitioner slept over the matter and
filed this petition only in the year 2024. Averments made in the
writ petition trying to justify as to why the petitioner earlier could
not assail order dated 12.10.2017 are incorrect. In terms of the
averments made in the writ petition, i.e., Para-14 thereof, the
petitioner has stated that he came to know about the order
dated 12.10.2017, passed by respondent No. 1, in terms
whereof, sanction to prosecute respondent No. 3 was refused,
only when documents were supplied to him after 25.04.2024.
Besides this, the petitioner has also mentioned in Para-8 of the
petition that after registration of the FIR and completion of
investigation, the petitioner was not aware about further
proceedings, because thereafter, ‘he was never
associated/informed by the CBI and by the learned Trial
Court with respect to the further proceedings of
abovementioned case’. However, the averments made in this
paragraph of the petition are falsified by the documents
appended with the petition itself, i.e., Annexure P-2, wherein,
::: Downloaded on – 01/08/2025 21:18:11 :::CIS
33
( 2025:HHC:25368 )
on 25.01.2018, further statement of the petitioner was recorded
by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, CBI, ACB, Chandigarh,
.
which reads as under:-
“RCCHG2017A0013 Date: 25.01.2018
Further statement of Sh. Chander Sekhar Sio
Sh. Surinder Kumar r/o H. No. 587-S, Sector-21,
Panchkula, Haryana.
r to U/s 161 of Cr.PC
DOB:24.07.1979
Mob No.9218503362
This is in Continuation to my earlier
statement dated 11.07.2017.
Today, I have been shown Authority
letter dated 24.03.2017 and on perusal of the same,
I state that it is the Authorization given to me by Shri
Vijay Aggarwal, Partner, M/s Medicef Pharma, Plot
no. 28, Jharmajri, EPIP Phase I, Baddi, Distt. Solan
(HP) on the letter head of the said Firm vide which I,
in the capacity as Consultant of the said firm was
authorized to do all kinds of dealing on behalf of the
said firm with the Department of Industries, Baddi
(HP) in the matter for claim of Central Investment
Subsidy by way of substantial expansion of the
machinery installed in the factory premises of the
said firm. I further state that the said Authority Letter
was executed by Shri Vijay Aggarwal in the capacity
::: Downloaded on – 01/08/2025 21:18:11 :::CIS
34
( 2025:HHC:25368 )
as Partner of the above Firm, which was duly
accepted by me in the capacity as Consultant of the
above said Firm. I identify my signature as well as
.
the signature of Shri Vijay Aggarwal on the said
Authority Letter. I identify the signatures of Shri
Vijay Aggarwal, Partner, M/s Medicef Pharma, Plot
no. 28, Jharmajri, EPIP Phase I, Baddi, Distt. Solan
(HP) on the above Authority letter dated
24.03.2017, as I have come across his signatures
and have also seen him signing documents in day
to day functioning of the work in the said Firm.
r On being asked, I state that I had
inadvertently signed in the above Authority Letter
under the head as “Executant” and Sh. Vijay
Aggarwal, Partner of the above Firm had likewise
inadvertently signed under the head “Accepted”, I
state that I should have signed as “Accepted in the
capacity as Consultant of the above Firm, whereas,
Sh. Vijay Aggarwal should have signed under the
head as “Executant” in the above said Authority
Letter in the capacity as Partner,, M/s Medicef
Pharma, Plot no. 28, Jharmajri, EPIP Phase I,
Baddi, Distt. Solan (HP).
On being asked, I state that I had
informed Sh. Vijay Aggarwal, Partner, M/s Medicef
Pharmą that Sh. Tilak Raj Sharma had demanded
bribe of Rs.10 lakhs for clearing the file pertaining to
::: Downloaded on – 01/08/2025 21:18:11 :::CIS
35
( 2025:HHC:25368 )
release of amount of Central Investment Subsidy of
our Firm through one Ashok Rana, a private person.
I state that Sh. Vijay Aggarwal and myself had also
.
discussed the matter of demand of bribe of Rs. 5
lakh as first installment by Sh. Tilak Raj Sharma
through Ashok Rana, a private person and the bribe
amount of Rs.5 lakhs was given to me by Sh. Vijay
Aggarwal, Partner of M/s Medicef Pharma to be
given to Sh. Tilak Raj Sharma for clearing the
subsidy file of our Firm. I had then lodged a written
complaint against Sh. Tilak Raj Sharma with CBI on
27.05.2017 for demand of bribe of Rs.5 lakh as first
installment from me for clearing the subsidy file of
our Firm.
Before me
RO & AC (R.S. Gunjiyal)
Dy. Supdt. of Police
CBI, ACB, Chandigarh"
The Court was informed that the statement was recorded in the
course of further investigation by the CBI, which was carried
out in compliance to the orders passed by the learned Special
Judge, CBI Court, Chandigarh. Therefore, the holding
out made by the petitioner in writ petition that after filing of
the FIR and after completion of the investigation, he was not
aware about further proceedings or that he was never
::: Downloaded on – 01/08/2025 21:18:11 :::CIS
36
( 2025:HHC:25368 )
associated/informed by the CBI or by the learned Court about
the proceedings in issue, is completely false. Thus, it is evident
.
that the petitioner concocted a story to make this Court believe
that he came to know about the refusal of sanction to prosecute
the private respondent only in the month of April, 2024,
whereas, record speaks to the contrary. This raises a huge
question mark with regard to the intent of the petitioner and,
clean hands.
r to
obviously, the petitioner has not approached the Court with
31. Another fact which this Court would like to point out
at this stage is that the writ petition as originally filed, was filed
with the prayer for setting aside impugned letter/office order
dated 12.10.2017, Annexure P-2. Therefore, when the
petitioner initially approached this Court by way of this writ
petition, he was only assailing the order of refusal to grant
prosecution which was passed by the Authority as far back as
in the year 2017. As this Court has already observed
hereinabove that the contention of the petitioner that he was
not aware of the said refusal cannot be accepted to be correct
because records demonstrate that he was very much aware of
::: Downloaded on – 01/08/2025 21:18:11 :::CIS
37
( 2025:HHC:25368 )
the factum of the refusal of the sanction as far back as in the
year 2017. In the absence of there being any cogent
.
explanation as to why the petitioner has approached this Court
against the said order after a gap of 7 years, this petition
obviously is hit by delay and laches, as has been argued by the
learned counsel for the private respondent also. Further,
interestingly, the prosecution has not assailed the order of
sanction in this case nor till date the Company, application filed
by which for the receipt of subsidy, purportedly resulted in the
filing of the complaint on behalf of the petitioner, has comeforth
to contest the refusal of the grant of sanction.
32. One more fact which this Court would like to
highlight at this stage is that during the pendency of the writ
petition, the same was amended and order dated 17.11.2022
was also challenged by the petitioner.
33. Now incidentally, though it is the contention of the
petitioner that it was during the pendency of these proceedings
that these developments took place but fact of the matter is that
this order was also passed by the Authority on 17.11.2022 and
initially this order was not even assailed in the writ petition.
::: Downloaded on – 01/08/2025 21:18:11 :::CIS
38
( 2025:HHC:25368 )
34. A perusal of order dated 17.11.2022 demonstrates
that Central Bureau of Investigation had not approached the
.
authority for grant of fresh prosecution sanction, but it
approached the authority for reconsideration of its earlier
decision, in terms whereof, sanction was not granted for the
prosecution of respondent No. 3. It is evident from Annexure
P-12 that the Competent Authority reiterated the earlier
decision conveyed vide letter dated 12.10.2017 by observing
that the earlier Sanctioning Authority had taken the decision not
to grant prosecution sanction after going through the entire
evidence and upon due application of mind on the issue.
35. Be that as it may, it is a matter of record that order
dated 12.10.2017 and 17.11.2022, were not passed by the
same Officer. This means that two different Officers who were
having the duty cast upon them to consider the request of the
prosecution for the grant of prosecution sanction, refused the
same. Besides this, there is no mala-fide alleged against the
Officers by the petitioner, who have refused to grant sanction.
The impugned orders demonstrate that the Authority took into
consideration the material that was placed before it by the
::: Downloaded on – 01/08/2025 21:18:11 :::CIS
39
( 2025:HHC:25368 )
prosecution and thereafter, after due application of mind, by
way of a reasoned order, refused to grant prosecution sanction.
.
This Court does not otherwise also find any infirmity in the
reasoning that has been given by the Authorities while refusing
the prosecution sanction. It cannot be said that the refusal is
without any due application of mind or without taking into
consideration the material that was placed before the
Authorities by the prosecution. Simply, because the petitioner is
not satisfied with the refusal of the prosecution sanction, this
does not render the refusal to be bad in law.
36. Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Karnataka Vs.
Ameerjan (Supra), has been pleased to hold that an order of
sanction should not be construed in a pedantic manner and it is
well settled that the purpose for which an order of sanction is
required to be passed should always be borne in mind. Hon’ble
Supreme Court further held that ordinarily the sanction
Authority is the best person to judge as to whether the public
servant concerned should receive the protection under the Act
by refusing to accord sanction for his prosecution or not.
37. Coming back to the facts of this case, a perusal of
::: Downloaded on – 01/08/2025 21:18:11 :::CIS
40
( 2025:HHC:25368 )
the impugned orders under challenge demonstrate that the
Authorities after taking into consideration the entire material
.
which was placed before them, concluded that in the facts of
the case, prosecution sanction was not to be granted and it
refused to do so by recording its satisfaction and by passing
reasoned orders and, therefore, the orders refusing to grant
sanction, are valid orders. There is no reason as to why this
Court should interfere with them and substitute its own decision
for the decision taken by the Authorities.
38. Accordingly, in the light of the above discussion, as
this Court finds no merit in the writ petition, the same is
dismissed. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also
stand disposed of accordingly.
(Ajay Mohan Goel)
Judge
July 14, 2025
(bhupender/shivank)
::: Downloaded on – 01/08/2025 21:18:11 :::CIS
[ad_1]
Source link