VIGILANCE MANUAL VOLUME III

DECISION - 406
(406)
793
(A) P.C. Act, 1988 — Sec. 19
(B) Sanction of prosecution — under P.C. Act
(i) Providing opportunity of hearing to the accused
before according sanction of prosecution does not
arise.
(ii) Exoneration of the accused in departmental
action is not relevant for issue of sanction of
prosecution.
Superintendent of Police, CBI vs. Deepak Chowdary,
1996(1) SLJ SC 171
In this case, the sanction of prosecution issued by the
competent authority under sec. 6(1)(c) of the P.C. Act, 1947
(corresponding to sec. 19 (1)(c) of P.C.Act, 1988) against the
respondent, Branch Manager, United Bank of India at Calcutta was
quashed by the High Court on two grounds, namely that the
respondent was not given any opportunity of hearing before granting
sanction of prosecution and in the departmental enquiry conducted
by the Bank, he was exonerated of the charge and as such it was not
expedient to proceed with the prosecution of the respondent.
The Supreme Court observed that the grant of sanction is
only an administrative function, though it is true that the accused
may be saddled with the liability to be prosecuted in a court of law.
What is material at that time is that the necessary facts collected
during investigation constituting the offence have to be placed before
the sanctioning authority and it has to consider the material. Prima
facie, the authority is required to reach the satisfaction that the relevant
facts would constitute the offence and then either grant or refuse to
grant sanction. The grant of sanction, therefore, being administrative
act, the need to provide an opportunity of hearing to the accused
before according sanction does not arise. The High Court, therefore,
was clearly in error in holding that the order of sanction is vitiated by
violation of the principles of natural justice.
The Supreme Court held that the second ground of