Read Time: 07 minutes

The Allahabad High Court on 9th February 2021 comprising a Division Bench of Justices Rajeev Singh and Ramesh Sinha quashed an impugned order dated 23.12.2020 observing that the,

“entire material evidences collected by the C.B.I. was not produced before the authority concerned and only report submitted by the C.B.I. was available to him, and the submissions of learned counsel for the respondents is that the entire material was placed before the authority concerned cannot be justified in the eyes of law.”

The present petition has been filed by the petitioner, seeking quashing of the impugned sanction order dated 23.12.2020 passed by the respondent No.2 (Addl. Chief Secy. Appoint. & Personnel, Lko) whereby, prosecution sanction has been granted under Section 197 of Cr.P.C r/w Section 19 of P.C. Act against the petitioner in R.C. No.0062010A0027 registered at Police Station Anti-Corruption Bureau, Lucknow, C.B.I., under Sections 120-B, 409, 420, 468, 471, 477-A, 201, 411 I.P.C. & Sections 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, with a further prayer of stay of arrest in the aforesaid case.

The petition contended that the,

“Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that the impugned sanction order dated 23.12.2020, which has been passed by the respondent No.2 itself shows that though, the prosecution sanction has been granted against the petitioner for his prosecution under the offences in question, without the material evidences available on record. He has also drawn attention of this Court towards, the para No.2 of the said order, by which it is apparent that the respondent No.2 had asked for documentary evidences for grant of prosecution against the petitioner, but the same was not supplied to him and the para No.3 of the said order, in which it is stated that said documents were not supplied to him and only a report was supplied to him by the C.B.I., which cause to show that there was no cogent material available before the authority concerned for consideration of grant of prosecution of the petitioner in the present case.”

Taking into account the factual matrix of the case the High Court relied upon the SC judgment in Mohinder Singh Gill vs. Chief Election Commissioner,1978 where it is held that, “every order must stand on its own leg” and thus observed that the,

“the learned Additional Government Advocate and learned counsel for the C.B.I. failed to fortify their arguments as the impugned sanction order does not reflect so and it is also evident that the Central Vigilance Commission, New Delhi under Section 8(1)(f) of the C.V.C. Act issued a circular No.08/05/15 dated 25.05.2015 and directed that the order of sanction should make it evident that the authority had been aware of all the relevant facts/materials and has applied its mind to all the relevant materials.”

Therefore the bench disposed of the present petition and directed that,

“the impugned sanction order dated 23.12.2020 is hereby quashed with liberty to the respondent No.2 to pass fresh order in accordance with the law, within a period of two weeks from the date of production of certified copy of this order.”

Case Title:  Jitendra Katiyar Vs. State Of U.P.Thru.Addl.Chief Secy.Appoint.&Personnel,Lko&Ors, 2021

Coram - Hon'ble Ramesh Sinha,J. and Hon'ble Rajeev Singh,J.

Counsel for Petitioner :- Nadeem Murtaza,Anjani Kumar Mishra,Shubham Tripathi Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Shiv P. Shukla

 

Access Copy of Order Here