Read Time: 06 minutes

Synopsis

The Madras High Court recently requested the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) to register a complaint given last year alleging misappropriation of fund by the persons managing the affairs of Pondichery University and investigate the case.

The bench of Justice G Jayachandran passed the order in a writ petition filed by one A.Anand to direct the respondent CBI to register a case based upon his complaint dated February 4, 2022. 

Earlier, Anand had given a complaint on January 6, 2022 to CBI, ACB, Chennai against the persons involved in management of the affairs of Pondichery University. However, those persons being the public servant, CBI thought fit to get prior sanction under Section 17A of P.C.Act, 1988, as amended by Act 16 of 2018.

The request to accord sanction under Section 17A emanated from CBI on June 23, 2022 after being satisfied that the material was available to register preliminary enquiry.

Inspite of several remainders, the Under Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Education did not respond to the CBI request. Therefore, the petitioner approached the high court. 

Before the high court, the counsel for the CBI submitted that after repeated reminders to the Ministry of Education, CBI has received a letter dated June 23, 2023, from intimating Puducherry University that the Executive Council of the University vide resolution dated May 5, 2023 had decided not to grant sanction for investigation.

The resolution stated that the recommendation of High Level Committee constituted by the University to conduct independent enquiry on the complaint and the decision of CVC was to close the case.

However, the high court, on perusing the status report filed by the Sub Inspector of Police, found that the complaint dated February 4, 2022 disclosed sufficient material to register the complaint and that is why sanction under Section 17A was sought.

Emphasising that Section 17A of the Act was only introduced to protect the officers from malicious prosecution, and the investigation agency should take that the sanction as deemed to have been accorded if authorities who are supposed to accord sanction to register a case do not apply their mind and take a decision within the prescribed period, court said that the provision which is incorporated for protecting the honest officers cannot be allowed to be misused and abused to protect the dishonest officers.

"They need not wait for an order of sanction under Section 17A of the Act, any further. If they wait for more than the period prescribed, there is every possibility of screening the evidence," opined the single judge bench. 

Further, court pointed out that the communication dated June 23, 2023 received from Puducherry University referred to the recommendation of High Level Committee and note of CVC which were prior to the complaint date.

"Even after lapse of 4 months, the department concerned not reacted and responded to the request and what they have communicated belatedly after filing of this petition is ignored," decided the judge. 

As a result, court asked the CBI to register the complaint and proceed with the investigation.

Case Title: A.Anand v. The Superintendent of Police, CBI Chennai and Others