Prosecution Sanction Is A Serious Administrative Duty, Courts Must Not Dictate Outcome: MP High Court

The Madhya Pradesh High Court at Indore has upheld a Special Judge’s decision to reject a Lokayukta closure report in a bribery case against a retired Executive Engineer, but ruled that the judge’s finding of a “prima facie” offence must be treated as an obiter dictum, so that it does not sway the authority deciding on prosecution sanction.

A division bench of Justice Subodh Abhyankar and Justice Jai Kumar Pillai partly allowed a petition filed by Ramnath Mishra against the 1 May 2025 order of the Special Judge (Prevention of Corruption Act), Indore. The bench said the sanctioning authority must decide “independently, without being influenced by the order of the Special Judge.”

Mishra was posted as Executive Engineer in the PWD Bridge Division, Indore, and has since retired. The complainant, Dharmendra Sharma, is a Class A government contractor who had won a tender to build a submersible bridge over the Khan River at village Darzi Karadiya.

According to the prosecution, Mishra called Sharma to his office on 13 May 2017 and demanded Rs 6,50,000 as his “commission”. Sharma claimed he paid Rs 1,50,000 in cash that day. On 4 July 2017, he approached the Superintendent of Police, Lokayukta, Indore, and recorded his meeting with Mishra on a digital voice recorder.

An FIR was registered under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Trap attempts in July 2017 failed because Mishra was not in his office and his phone was switched off. In February 2019, the investigating officer filed a final closure report, reasoning that running bills had already been paid, so there was no reason to demand a bribe.

The Special Judge rejected that report, observed that a prima facie offence was made out and directed that the records be placed before the competent authority for sanction within three months.

Challenging this, Mishra argued through Advocates Lokesh Kumar Bhatnagar and Jayaditya Shrivastava that the Special Judge had no jurisdiction to direct the agency to seek sanction. He said the finding would act as an “external force” on the authority.

Appearing for the Lokayukta, Advocate Prasanna Prasad called the petition premature, since no cognizance had been taken. He pointed to a positive voice-match report from the Regional Forensic Science Laboratory, Bhopal, and argued that a mere demand of illegal gratification completes the offence under Section 7, even if a trap fails.

The High Court agreed that the closure report was rightly rejected. Relying on the Supreme Court’s decision in Minu Kumari vs State of Bihar, it noted that a Magistrate may accept a police report, direct further investigation or disagree with it. Given the forensic report and audio recordings, the Special Judge “was within his jurisdiction to disagree with the closure report.”

The bench, however, found merit in Mishra’s concern about the language used. It observed that a “strong and direct finding by a judicial court will pressure the sanctioning authority”, adding that sanction under Section 19 of the Act is “a serious administrative duty.”

Citing Arun Kumar Aggarwal vs State of M.P., a Lokayukta case in which the Supreme Court treated similar remarks as obiter dictum, the court said such a finding “should not have been recorded in a manner that sounds like a final judicial command.”

On Mishra’s plea that he was retired, the bench was firm: “retirement from public service does not provide any legal protection against criminal offences alleged to have been committed during service.” The three-month deadline was held lawful.

The impugned order was upheld to the extent that it rejected the closure report and directed placement of the records before the competent authority. The Special Judge’s observation that an offence under Section 7 was prima facie made out stands modified and is to be treated as obiter dictum.

The court directed that the authority “shall not be influenced in any manner by the observations made by the Special Court in the impugned order.”

Case Title: Ramnath Mishra vs. Special Police Establishment, Lokayukta, Indore and Another

Order Date: September 24, 2026

Bench: Justice Subodh Abhyankar and Justice Jai Kumar Pillai