Delay In Grant Of Sanction Within 4 Months By Itself Not Enough To Quash Prosecution In Corruption Case: Telangana High Court

The Telangana High Court refused to quash disproportionate assets case against a public servant, holding that mere delay in grant of sanction by itself is not enough to abort a corruption case. This, when the Anti-Corruption Bureau had consistently pursued sanction and the accused had not invoked available remedies at the relevant time.Referring to Supreme Court's decision in Vijay Rajmohan v CBI (2023) where it was held that that the sanctioning authority is required to grant sanction within 3 months along with an additional period of 1 month and upon expiry the complainant, accused or victim is entitled to approach the appropriate Writ Court to seek appropriate remedies, Justice Juvvadi Sridevi observed:"In the instant case, the petitioner failed to challenge the legality of the delay, neither before the trial Court nor before the High Court to seek necessary directions. This inaction constitutes a neglect of the remedy explicitly made available under law and a failure to utilize the statutory and judicial safeguards designed to address such delays. While the judgment in Vijay Rajmohan's case was expressly relied upon by the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, no attempt was made to invoke the remedies available, thereby undermining the petitioner's reliance on the delay in granting sanction. Hence, in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid judgment, mere non-compliance with the mandatory requirement of granting sanction within four (4) months cannot, by itself, constitute a ground to quash the proceedings against the petitioner. The delay, in the absence of any other substantive illegality, does not entitle the petitioner to the relief claimed.”The Court further held that the petitioner's exoneration in departmental proceedings did not assist him, since the material on record showed that the departmental enquiry had not culminated in a clean exoneration on merits and could not conclude the criminal case at the threshold.The Court held that “there was no delay or inaction on the part of the ACB” and that the chronology showed it had “exercised due diligence and consistently pursued the matter with the competent authorities.”The delay in obtaining sanction and filing the charge sheet, the Court said, appeared to be “purely administrative in nature” and could not be attributed to negligence or dereliction on the part of the ACB.For context, the Supreme Court in Vijay Rajmohan had held that period of 3 months (extendable by one more month for legal consultation) under Section 19 PC Act, for the Appointing Authority to decide upon a request for sanction is mandatory.However, the consequence of non-compliance with this mandatory requirement shall not be quashing of the criminal proceeding for that very reason, it had added. BackgroundThe petitioner, Sri Azmeera Kailas, had approached the High Court seeking quashing of proceedings pending before the Special Judge for offences under Sections 13(2) read with 13(1)(e) (criminal misconduct) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. As per the prosecution case, the ACB had initially registered a disproportionate assets case in 2010 against one Dheeravathu Koteswara Rao, an Assistant Divisional Engineer. During that investigation, the petitioner's house was searched on 22.12.2010 on the allegation that he was a friend and colleague of the said officer and had jointly purchased certain assets with him. The ACB alleged that during the check period from 25.01.2002 to 22.12.2010, the petitioner had acquired assets in the form of a residential building and agricultural land worth over Rs.67 lakh, later reflected in the charge sheet at Rs.70.26 lakh, while his likely savings were far lower. It was alleged that he was in possession of disproportionate assets of Rs.47,03,453/-, later reflected in the charge sheet at Rs.40,04,034/-, for which he could not satisfactorily account. The petitioner argued that though his house search was conducted in December 2010 and a case was registered against him in June 2011, the investigation made no real progress for years. He contended that after he submitted explanations in 2013 and 2014, the authorities remained silent, and only after he approached the High Court in 2024 was sanction obtained on 15.10.2024 and the charge sheet hurriedly filed. He also argued that the sanction order had been passed mechanically, without application of mind, and that he had been exonerated in departmental proceedings on the same set of facts.Meanwhile, the ACB submitted that the delay was administrative and not attributable to investigating officers. It pointed out that a final report seeking sanction had been submitted to the Government on 27.11.2014 and that the Director General, ACB, had addressed as many as 19 letters between 2015 and 2024 seeking sanction. According to the ACB, sanction was finally accorded on 15.10.2024, after which the charge sheet was promptly filed.FindingsRelying on the Supreme Court's ...

Delay In Grant Of Sanction Within 4 Months By Itself Not Enough To Quash Prosecution In Corruption Case: Telangana High Court

Ananya Tangri

Tags