State By Police Inspector, Karnataka Lokayuktha, Bangalore Division, Bangalore v. M. Nanjunda

1. The State of Karnataka has assailed the order of acquittal recorded in favour of the respondent-accused in Special Case No. 185 of 1994 disposed of by the learned Special Judge, Bangalore on 11-1-1996. The accused was prosecuted on a corruption charge and the prosecution lead substantial evidence for purposes of factually establishing that the accused who was the Village Accountant and hence a public servant had demanded and received a sum of Rs. 500/- as and by way of illegal gratification from the complainant-Puttanna. The Principal ground on which the Trial Court acquitted the accused was because, the finding was recorded that the sanction order Ex. P. 7 was invalid. The Court held that P.W 9-the Deputy Commissioner, Bangalore Urban had not duly applied his mind while according sanction and that consequently, the sanction order was liable to be struck down. In view of the fact that the sanction order was held to be bad, the Court recorded an order of acquittal in favour of the accused and the present appeal is directed against that order.

2. The principal submission canvassed by the learned Additional State Public Prosecutor was that if the Court were to peruse the rest of the evidence de hors the sanction order, that there is really no ground on which this material can be rejected by the Court, and that this evidence in terms establishes that the accused who was a public servant had in fact received the illegal gratification of Rs. 500/- from the complainant on 19-10-1992 for purposes of showing favour to him in the matter of sanction of plans for the construction of building on the plot belonging to the complainant's wife. The submission is that if this is the position, merely because of some technical infirmity, that it would be a travesty of justice for the accused to get the benefit of an order of acquittal particularly since corruption is an offence that seriously affects public life and that consequently, the order of acquittal should be reversed. Coming to the validity of the sanction order, the learned Additional State Public Prosecutor submitted that a perusal of the order will indicate that in Paragraph 2, the sanctioning authority has in terms stated that he has perused and considered the record of the case and the facts of the case and that being satisfied that this is a fit case for the accord of sanction to a corruption charge, that the sanction had been accorded. It is his submission that the Trial Court was in error in having held that there was non-application of mind in this case when in fact, the sanction order mentioned that the authority has perused the records and considered them. Next, the learned Counsel has drawn my attention to the evidence of the Deputy Commissioner who is P.W 9 wherein he has stated in the witness-box that he did receive the records of the case, that he had considered the records and accorded sanction on that basis. His submission is that in this background, there was due application of mind and that the sanction order is valid.

3. This position is seriously disputed by the respondent's learned Counsel who defends the order passed by the Trial Court principally on the ground that there are well-defined principles of law that apply to the test as to whether or not, a sanction order is valid and it is his contention, that if from a perusal of the sanction order, the Court cannot be satisfied that there has been due application of mind, that merely through a process of covering-up when the witness enters the witness-box that it would not be sufficient to satisfy the important ingredient of due application of mind.

4. The law with regard to the manner in which the sanction is to be accorded and more importantly, the quality of a sanction order is well-defined. I need to reiterate here that corruption cases involve public servants and, regardless of the facts of each individual case, merely because there is some allegation of a corruption charge, or merely because the anti-corruption police put up the papers for sanction on the ground that the corruption offence has been committed, does not ipso facto mean that the authority must mechanically accord sanction. There is very deep-seated and well-defined philosophy behind the requirement for sanction in corruption cases, the first of them being that the consequences of accord of sanction are very disastrous to the public servant both as far as his job, his reputation and even his social standing are concerned. It is therefore very important that the sanctioning authority must independently peruse the investigation papers and independently of the police report come to the conclusion that there is enough material to sustain the charge. If there are infirmities in the investigation, if the evidence gathered is weak, or if on an overall view of the material produced by the investigating agency there is really no valid case made out or no case that could ever sustain a conviction, then merely because the authority has asked for sanction, it would not be correct for sanction to be accorded. There is another aspect of the law which this Court has laid down recently viz., that there are a class of misconducts which could he adequately dealt with through disciplinary or departmental proceedings and it is this class of small cases wherein it would be inappropriate to grant sanction if adequate punishment could be awarded through disciplinary or departmental proceedings. Whether the case is one which therefore validly justifies a prosecution insofar as it is serious enough to warrant the heavy punishments prescribed under the Prevention of Corruption Act or whether it is one which can be adequately punished through disciplinary proceedings is an aspect which the sanctioning authority is required to judicially consider before granting sanction. This being the legal position, the Courts have invariably held that sanction orders which are mechanically or arbitrarily granted are liable to be struck down.

5. A mere perusal of the sanction order in the present case is sufficient to indicate that it was obviously prepared by the office staff of the Deputy Commissioner and it is equally clear to me that the officer has signed it without even reading it. The reason for this is because though an attempt has been made to see to it that it is in the correct pro forma, there is a tell-tale indication in Paragraph 1, wherein certain words appear in brackets. The whole of Paragraph 1 is reproduced below.—

“Whereas it is alleged that Shri M. Nanjunda while functioning as Village Accountant-cum-Village Panchayat Secretary, Bettahalsur Village Panchayat Jala Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk on 19th day of October, 1992 (particulars of the acts constituting offences committed by the accused to be given in detail)”.

6. It is a sad reflection on the manner in which, the sanctioning authority has functioned and it is equally unfortunate that an officer holding a responsible post has behaved in this fashion. I fully share the sentiments expressed by the learned Additional State Public Prosecutor when he pointed out that the record of this case on facts clearly makes out a perfect case for conviction and that only because of the absolutely defective and worthless sanction order, that the accused has technically got the benefit of an acquittal. The presence of those words in brackets and the fact that the officer has not even read the sanction order before signing it, is sufficient to support the findings of the learned Trial Judge that this is a case of total non-application of mind. It is true that the learned Additional State Public Prosecutor vehemently tried to save the sanction order by pointing out to me that in his evidence before the Court, the Deputy Commissioner has tried to state that he had received the records and that he had examined and studied them before according sanction but, this worsens the position because of what I have already recorded earlier. It clearly shows that the officer was conscious of his earlier errors and tried to cover-up for them in the witness-box. It is also well-settled law that an order is required to be self-sustaining and is required to be able to stand on its own feet, and that no amount of subsequent padding from the maker of the order or cover-up action in the witness-box could bolster up or revive or revitalise a sanction order that is virtually non est. This is a case in which the sanction order itself on the face of it will have to be rejected by the Court and no amount of effort by the Deputy Commissioner in the witness-box can rejuvenate it.

7. It is well-settled law that in corruption trials a valid sanction order is condition precedent for a conviction. I do not need to cite the case-law on this point, as the law is well-settled. Where the sanction order is defective, the prosecution is vitiated and the learned Trial Judge has rightly applied the law in this case. It is impossible and it would be improper for this Court to interfere with the order of acquittal in the aforesaid circumstances.

8. One needs to address a candid and straight question to the authorities of the State Government who are in-charge of these prosecutions asking them as to whether they are at all serious about curtailing and containing corruption or whether the line of action is so directed towards encouraging this activity. As matters stand, the prosecutions themselves are confined to the small fry leading to the impression that the Prevention of Corruption Act does not apply at higher levels! What worsens the situation is that the investigations are conducted in such a cavalier manner as to provide the accused with the necessary escape routes thereby generating the confidence in every corrupt official that there is no risk of ever getting convicted. To add to this disastrous situation wherein not even 9 per cent of the prosecutions end in convictions comes the added facility of the sanction orders being defective in at least 90 per cent of the cases. The requirements are very simple and the format of a valid sanction are well-known despite which in case after case, the Court comes across highly placed Government officers who are the sanctioning authorities virtually abdicating their responsibilities and signing sanction orders that have obviously been drafted out by the clerks. — judging from the quality thereof. It is hoped that the State Government will view this situation with sufficient seriousness and ensure that these officers behave and function with a sense of responsibility in future. Even in those of the cases where the prosecution would have succeeded in punishing the corrupt official, the defective sanction order guarantees their acquittal. The investigating officers are the ones who are to blame because it is obvious to the Court that they do not even bother to read or scrutinise the sanction order and to get it rectified wherever it is defective. The Prevention of Corruption Act which was put on the statute book with the sole purpose of bringing to book corrupt persons in public life is being frustrated and nothing can be more damaging to public interest than a situation in which a corrupt public servant who has been prosecuted by the anti-corruption authorities gets acquitted by default, is required to be paid the salary and allowances for the entire period and is again let loose on society with renewed vigour and appetite. The investigations in these cases reveal that the officials who got trapped are not novices or new comers, that they are regular seasoned campaigners who have reached a point of avarice, that the victims cannot bear to contend with and that is the stage at which alone they take the trouble to come to the anti-corruption authorities. No investigation is done with regard to their assets and whether they are disproportionate to their known source of earning. When such an official is trapped and gets away, it is the surest precursor of unlimited corruption on an accelerated basis thereafter. This Court seriously recommends to the State Government that it wakes up to this situation and eliminates these avenues that are only compounding corruption at all levels of public life. It needs to be pointed out that if a regular example is made by awarding condign punishments in a few cases that it will have a chilling effect to this activity which is the biggest blemish on public life in this country.

9. The appeal accordingly fails and stands dismissed. The bail bond of the accused if executed to stand cancelled. (Registrar General to forward a copy of this judgment to the Lokayukta and the Home Secretary, Government of Karnataka.)