Holding

Where the sanction order itself is expressive and the sanctioning authority testifies to having considered the relevant material, the sanction under Section 6(1) of the Prevention of Corruption Act is valid and cannot be set aside.

Summary

C.S. Krishnamurthy, a technical supervisor in Bangalore Telephones, was charged under Section 5(2) read with Section 5(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 for possessing assets disproportionate to his known income between 1964 and 1986. The Deputy General Manager of the department sanctioned the prosecution under Section 6(1) after reviewing the CBI report and consulting the vigilance and legal departments. A Special Judge acquitted Krishnamurthy on the ground that the sanction was invalid, but the Karnataka High Court set aside the acquittal, holding the sanction valid. On appeal, the Supreme Court examined whether the sanction order itself, being expressive and supported by the sanctioning authority’s testimony, satisfied the requirement of due application of mind. The Court affirmed that when a sanction order clearly discloses the facts constituting a prima facie offence, it is sufficient and the sanction cannot be invalidated merely for lack of additional material. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed and the sanction upheld, with the matter remitted to the trial court for determination on the merits.

Issues considered

Whether the sanction granted under Section 6(1) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, is valid for prosecuting a public servant.
Whether an expressive sanction order, read with the sanctioning authority’s testimony, satisfies the requirement of due application of mind.
Whether the absence of detailed material before the sanctioning authority invalidates the sanction.
Whether the lapse of 19 years since the alleged offence affects the propriety of proceeding with the case.

Legislation cited

Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947s. 5(1)(e), s. 5(2), s. 6(1)

Subjects

Prevention of Corruption Actsanction validitypublic servantdisproportionate assetsdue application of mindcriminal procedurecorruptionappeal

Judgment

C.S. KRISHNAMURTHY A
v.
STATE OF KARNATAKA

MARCH 29, 2005

[P. VENKATARAMA REDDI AND A.K. MATHUR, JJ.] B

Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947-Section 6(1) and Sectio~ 5(2) read
with Section 5(1)(e)-Accumulation of assets disproportionate to income by
public servant-Sanction Order by the Authority for prosecution under Section C
5(2) read with 5(1)(e)-Validity of-Held: Facts disclosed in the sanction
order are eloquent for constituting prima facie offence under the Section and
on reading it with evidence ofsanctioning authority, it is clear that the sanction
was accorded properly with due application of mind and hence, valid-Order
of High Court that sanction accorded was valid calls for no interference-
Constitution of India, 1950-Article 136. D
It is alleged that a technical supervisor of the Telephone Department
accumulated assets disproportionate to his known source of income for
certain period. CBI carried out the investigation and filed charge sheet
against the employee for offence under Section 5(2) read with Section
S(l)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947. Deputy General E
Manager of the Department accorded sanction under section 6(1) of the
Act for prosecution of the accused. Special Judge acquitted the accused
on the ground that the sanction was invalid. Single Judge of High Court
set aside the order holding that the sanction accorded by the prosecution
was valid and remitted the matter to the Special Judge. Hence the present F
appeal.

Dismissing the appeal, the Court

HELD : 1.1. Sanction is necessary for every prosecution of public
servant; this safeguard is against the frivolous prosecution against public G
servant from harassment. But, the sanction should not be taken as a shield
to protect corrupt and dishonest public servant. Sanction order should
speak for itself and in case the facts do not so appear, it should be proved
by leading evidence that all the particulars were placed before the
sanctioning authority for due application of mind. In case the sanction
1163 H
1164 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2005] 2 S.C.R.

A speaks for itself then the satisfaction of the sanctioning authority is
apparent by reading the order. When the sanction itself is very expressive,
then the argument that particular material was not properly placed before
the sanctioning authority for according sanction and sanctioning authority
has not applied its mind becomes unsustainable. When sanction order itself
is eloquent enough, then in that case only formal evidence .has to be
B produced by the sanctioning authority or by any other evidence that the
sanction was accorded by a competent person with due application of
mind. [11~8-G; 1170-E-F; 1169-C-D)
~.2. In the insta~t case, the sanction order itself discloses the facts
that the incumbent is being prosecuted under the provisions of the
C Prevention of Corruption Act for accumulating moveable and immovable
assets disproportionate to his known source of income and he has failed
to give satisfactory account for the same. The sanction order speaks for
itself that the incumbent has to account for the assets disproportionate to
his known source of income. More so, Deputy General Manager of the
D Department has collie in the witness box as prosecution witness and has
proved the sanction order, that he was competent authority to ac·cord
sanction and he accorded the sanction for prosecution of accused for the
alleged offence. He deposed that after going through the report of the
Superintendent of Police, CBI and after discussing the matter with his legal
department, he accorded sanction which is enough to show that there is
E due application of mind. The facts contained in the sanction order read
with evidence of sanctioning authority makes it clear that sanction was
properly accorded and is valid. Facts mentioned in sanction order are
eloquent for constitutingprimafacie offence under Section 5(2) read with
Section 5(1)(e) of the Act. Therefore, the view taken by Single Judge of
F the High Court is justified and calls for no interfe:-ence.
[1171-G-H; 1170-F-G; 1172-A]
Mansukhlal Vithaldas Chauhan v. State of Gujarat, (1997] 7 SCC 622,
distinguished.
Jndu Bhusan Chatterjee v. State of West Bengal, [1958] SCR 999; R.S.
G Pandit v. State of Bihar, {1963] Supp. 2 SCR 652; Balaram Swain v. State
of Orissa, [1991) Supp. 1 SCC 510 and State of T.N. v. MM Rajendran,
[1998] 9 sec 268, referred to.
2. It cannot be said that since the offence was alleged to have been
committed almost 19 years ago, it would not be advisable to proceed with
H the matter. It is a matter of corruption and latitude cannot be give in such
C.S. KRISHNAMURTHY 1·. STATE OF KARNATAKA [A.K. MATHUR, J.] 1165

matters. [1172-B[ A
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURJSDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. 462
of 2005.

From the Judgment and Order dated I 0.6.2004 of the Karnataka High
Court in Crl.A. No. 608 of 1998. B
N.D.B. Raju, Ms. Bharathi R. and Guntur Prabhakar for the Appellant.

A. Sharan, Additional Solicitor General, V. Krishnamurthy and P.
Panneswaran, with him for the Respondent.

The Judgment of t~e Court was delivered by
c
A.K. MATHUR, J. Leave granted.

This appeal is directed against an order passed by learned Single Judge
of the High Court ofKarnataka at Bangalore in Criminal Appeal No. 608.of
D-
1998 whereby learned Single Judge by his order dated June 10, 2004 has
allowed the appeal of State and set aside the order of the XXI Additional
Sessions Judge and Special Judge for CBI at Bangalore City whereby he
acquitted the appellant accused under Section 5(2) read with Section 5(l)(e)
of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1947 on the ground of sanction beirtg
invalid in CC No. 131/1990 dated 20th March, 1998. E
Brief facts necessary for disposal of this appeal are that the accused Sri
C.S. Krishnamurthy, Technical Supervisor, Bangalore Telephones, Bangalore
was charge-sheeted for the offence under Section 5(2) read with Section 5(1)
(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1947 (hereinafter referred to as th~
"Act") alleging that during the period from May 25, 1964 to June 27, 1986 F
he acquired assets disproportionate to his known source of income. On 27th
June, 1986 he was in possession of movables and immovable assets worth
Rs. 4, 0 I, 454.58 disproportionate to his known source of income and did not
give any satisfactory account. The CBI, Bangalore City, after completion of
the investigation filed charge sheet against the accused. The charges were G
framed against the accused and prosec~tion examined 56 witnesses and marked
exhibits P-1 to P.124. The statement of the accused was recorded under
Section 313 Cr.P.C. The accused filed the written explanation. However, he
did not choose to lead any defence evidence. The learned Special Judge after
hearing the parties framed following questions which read as under : -
H
1166 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2005] 2 S.C.R.

A "I. Whether the sanction order is valid?

2. Whether the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubt
that the accused being Technician and then Technical Supervisor
in Bangalore Telephones, being a public servant during the period
from 25.5.1964 to 27.6.1986 acquired assets which were
B disproportionate to his known sources of income as on 27.6.1986
as the accused was in possession of movables and immovable
assets worth Rs. 4,0 l ,454.58 Ps. Which were disproportionate
to his known source of income for which he could not give
satisfactory account?

c 3. Whether the prosecution has proved beyond all reasonable doubt
that the accused has committed the offence under Section 5( I)( e)
of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, punishable under
Section 5(2) of the said Act?

4. What order? "
D
Learned Special Judge acquitted the accused and held that there was no
proper sanction. Learned Special Judge held that the prosecution has failed
to prove the valid Sanction under Exhibit P-83 and therefore, prosecution is
without jurisdiction and he acquitted the accused of all charges. Aggrieved
against the order, an appeal was presented by the CBI to the High Court.
E
Learned Single Judge of the High Court of Karnataka, after examining
the evidence came to the conclusion that the sanction accorded by the

--
prosecution is valid and set aside the order of the learned Sessions Judge and
remitted the matter back. to the Special Judge, CBI, Bangalore to register the
case and to decide the matter afresh after hearing both the parties. Aggrieved
F against this order of the learned Single Judge, the present appeal has been
preferred by the accused.

We heard both the learned counsel for the parties and perused the
record. Whole case depends upon the sanction. Whether the sanction granted
G by the authority is a valid sanction or not? In order to appreciate this
controversy, we reproduce the sanction order which reads as under : -

"SANCTION ORDER

Whereas it is alleged that Shri C.S. Krishnamurthy while
functioning as Technician and then as Technical Supervisor, Bangalore
H
C.S. KRISHNAMURTHY v. STATE OF KARNATAKA [A.K. MATHUR, J.] 1167

Telephones, Bangalore, during the period between 25.5.1964 to A
25.6.1986, and, as on 27 .6.1986 he was found in possession of assets/.
properties/pecuniary resources to the tune of Rs. 4,01,454.58 Ps. Which
are disproportionate to his known source of income suggesting that
the said Sri. C.S. Krishnamurthy acquired the said assets by
questionable means and/or from dubious sources and for which he · B
cannot render any satisfactory account/explanation.

Whereas the above said allegation is based on the following facts
and circumstances : -

Shri C.S. Krishnamurthy joined the Telephone Department as
Telephone Mechanic on 25.5.1964. He was promoted as Technical C
Supervisor and was working with Bangalore Telephone.

Whereas it has been made to appear that the total income earned
by the said Shri C.S. Krishmurthy from all known sources between
the period 25.5.1964 to 27.6.1986 is Rs. 7, 91,534.93Ps. The income
was from salary, GPF advances, the Rental income, the interest amount D
received from Bank accounts, the loan amount received from LIC
towards house constructions, the dividend income, interest amount
and gain in respect of chits received from Navyodaya "Sahakara
.... Bank, Vyyalikaval House Building, Co-operative Society, Vishalam
Chit Funds and Reliance Industries, loan received from friends and E
family members, gain towards sale of scooter/car, sale proceeds of
jewellery and income rec.eived by family members.

Whereas it has been made to appear that the total expenditure
incurred by the said Shri C.S. Krishnamurthy in the above said period
from 25.5.1964 to 25.6.1986 was Rs. 2,41,382.85Ps. p
Whereas it has been, made to appear that the total assets both
movable and immovable acquired by the said Shri C.S. Krishnamurthy
during the check period from 25.5.1964 to 27.6.1986 amounted to
Rs. 9,51,606.66Ps.

Whereas it has been made to appear that the said Shri G
C.S.Krishnamurthy during the entire period of his service as a public
servant have likely savings to the tune of Rs. 5,50,152.08ps. only
against which has had been found in possession of total assets both
movable and immovable to the tune of Rs. 9,51,606.66 ps. The extent
of disproportionate assets possessed by Shri C.S. Krishnamurthy as H
1168 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2005) 2 S.C.R.

A on 27.6.1986 comes to Rs. 4,01,454.58 Ps ..

Whereas the said acts constitute offence punishable under Section
5(2) r/2 5(l)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, (Act II of
1947).

B And whereas, I, V. Partha Sarthy being the authority competent
to remove Shri C.S. Krishnamurthy from office after fully and carefully
examining the materials placed before me in regard to the said
allegations and circumstances of this case, consider that the said Shri
C.S. Krishnamurthy should be prosecuted in a Court of Law for the
said offences.
c Now, therefore, I V. Partha Sarthy do hereby accord sanction
under Section 6(1) (C) of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1947 (Act·
II of I 94 7) for the Prosecution of the said Shri C.S. Krishnamurthy
for the said offences and any other offences punishable under other
provisions of Law in respect of the said offences by a Court of
D competent jurisdiction."

This sanction order was proved by Mr. V. Parthasarthy, Deputy General
Manager of Bangalore Telecom as PW-40, he was competent authority to
accord sanction and he accorded the sanction for prosecution of accused for
the alleged offence on 28th February, 1990 as per Ex.P. 83. He deposed that
E S.P. CBI sent a report against the accused and he perused the report and
accorded the sanction as per Ex.P.83. He deposed that he was satisfied that
there was a case for prosecuting the accused for the alleged offence. He
admitted that he received a draft sanction order and a draft sanction order
was also examined by vigilance cell and then it was put up before him. He
p also deposed that before according sanction he discussed the matter with the
vigilance cell. He also admitted that he was not a law man, therefore, he
discussed the legal implication with a legally qualified officer in the vigilance
cell. He has denied the suggestion that he did not apply his mind in according
sanction. It is no doubt true that the sanction is necessary for every prosecution
of public servant, this safeguard is against the frivolous prosecution against
G public servant from harassment. But, the sanction should not be taken as a
shield to protect corrupt and dishonest public servant. In the present case, a
perusal of the sanction order itself shows that Shri C.S. Krishnamurthy's
income from all known sources between the period from May 25, 1964 to
June 27, 1986 was Rs. 7,91, 534.93 that income was from salary, GPF
H advances, rental income, interest amount from bank accounts and loan amount
C.S. KRISHNAMURTHY v. STATE OF KARNATAKA [A.K. MA THUR, .I.] l J69

received from UC towards house constructions, the dividend income, interest A
amount and gain in respect of chits received from Navyodaya Sahakra Bank,
Vyyalikaval House Building Co-operative Society, Vishalam Chit Funds and
Reliance Industries loan received from friends and family members, gain
towards sale of scooter/car, sale proceeds of jewellery and income received
by family members and the total expenditure incurred by the accused during
these period is Rs. 2,4I,382.85 and the total assets acquired by the accused B
both movable and immovable from May 25, 1964 to June 27, I986 is Rs.
9,5 I ,606.66 ps. Therefore, the accused has to account for difference between
the two. The sanction itself shows that there is something to be accounted by
the accused. When the sanction itself is very expressive, then in that case, the
argument that particular material was not properly placed before the C
sanctioning authority for according sanction and sanctioning authority has
not applied its mind becomes unsustainable. When sanction order itself is
eloquent enough, then in that case only formal evidence has to be produced
by the sanctioning authority or by any other evidence that the sanction was
accorded by a competent person with due application of mind. In the present
case the learned additional sessions Judge took a very narrow view that all D
the papers were not placed before the Court to show that.there was proper
application of mind by the sanctioning authority. The view t:iken by learned
Special Judge was not correct and the learned Single Judge correctly set aside
the order. In this connection we may refer to a three Judge Bench decision
of this Court reported in [1958] SCR 999, Indu Bhusan Chatterjee v. The E
State of Bangal in which a similar argument was raised that a sanctioning
authority did not apply his mind to the facts of the case but merely perused
the draft prepared by the Police and did not investigate the truth of the
offence. The learned Judges after perusing the sanction order read with the
evidence of Mr. Bokil held that there was a valid sanction accorded by a
competent person. In this case, the accused was charged under Section 161 F
of the Indian Penal Code and Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption
Act. The accused was paid a sum of Rs. I 00 in marked currency as illegal
gratification at Coffee House for clearing some claims entrusted to him and
same was found in his possession. Sanction for prosecution of the appellant
was sought from PW-5. Mr. Bokil as a competent authority to grant sanction, G
he came in witness box and he deposed that he accorded sanction for
prosecution after proper application of mind. On these facts the learned Judges
observed that Ext. 6 on face of it disclosed a valid sanction for prosecution.
In the sanction order it was disclosed that accused had accepted a bribe of
Rs. I 00 for clearing claim cases and he was trapped. Though sanctioning
authority who came in witness box could not answer some questions in cross H
1170 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2005] 2 S.C.R.

A examination, yet this Court held that sanction itself is eloquent read with
evidence of sanctioning authority and same is valid. In the present case, the
facts contained in the sanction order read with evidence of sanctioning authority
makes it clear that sanction was properly accorded and is valid.

In this connection, a reference was made to a decision of the Constitution
B Bench in the case of R.S.Pandit v. State of Bihar, reported in [1963] Supp.
2 SCR 652 wherein their Lordships after referring to a decision of the Privy
Council in the case of Gokulchand Dwarkadas Morarka v. The King, AIR
(1948) PC 83 observed as under :

"Section 6 of the Act also does not require the sanction to be
c given in a particular form. The principle expressed by the Privy
Council, namely that the sanction. should be given in respect of the
facts constituting the offence charged equally applies to the sanction
under S.6 of the Act. In the present case all the facts constituting the
offence of misconduct with which the appellant was charged were
D placed before the Government The second prin'ciple, namely, that the
facts should be referred to on the face of the sanction and if they do
not so appear, the prosecution must prove them by extraneous
evidence, is certainly sound having regard to the purpose of the
requirements of a sanction.''

E Therefore, the ratio is sanction order should speak for itself and in case
the facts do not so appear, it should be proved by leading evidence that all
the particulars were placed before the sanctioning authority for due application
of mind. In case the sanction speaks for itself then the satisfaction of the
sanctioning authority is apparent by reading the order. In the present case, the
sanction order speaks for itself that the incumbent has to account for the
F assets disproportionate to his known source of income. That is contained in
the sanction order itself. More so, as pointed out, the sanctioning authority
has come in the witness box as witness No. 40 and has deposed about his
application of mind and after going through the report of the Superintendent
of Police, CBI and after discussing the matter with his legal department, he
G accorded sanction. It is not a case that the sanction is lacking in the present
case. The view taken by the Additional Sessions Judge is not correct and the
view taken by learned Single Judge of the High Court is justified.

In the case of Balaram Swain v. State of Orissa, reported in [1991]
Supp. I sec 51 O the High Court reversed the finding of the trial court that
H the sanctioning authority has not applied its mind on the materials placed
C.S. KRISHNAMURTHY v. STA TE OF KARNA TAKA [A.K. MA THUR, J ] J I7 J

before him. It was observed in para 9 that the sanctioning authority , namely, A
PW 4 has stated on both that he perused the consolidated report of the
vigilance and fully applied his mind and thereafter issued the sanction. The
admission of PW-7 in that case that the entire record was not looked into,
was held to be not fatal to the sanction. The finding of the High Court was
affirmed by Apex Court. Likewise, P.W.40, i.e. the sanctioning authority in B
the present case, has gorre through the report of the Superintendent of Police
and after discussing the matter with the legal department has accorded sanction.
That is enough to show that there is due application of mind in the present
case.

Our attention was invited to another decision of this Court. In the case C
of Mansukhlal Vithaldas Chauhan v. State of Gujarat, reported in [1997] 7
sec 622, wherein sanction was quashed because sanction for prosecution
was given under the direction of the High Court, therefore, it was held that
it was not independent application of mind by sanctioning authority as such
sanction was invalid. In this case, sanctioning authority who was supposed to
apply its mind for granting sanction was denuded of its power because of the D
direction given by the High Court. Therefore, this case does not help the
appellant.

Similarly, our attention was invited to a decision of this Court.

In the case of State of T.N. v. MM Rajendran, reported in [l 998] 9 E
SCC 268. In this case, sanction was accorded by the City Commissioner of
Police, Madras. On that basis the trial commenced. The High Court found
that all the relevant materials including the statements recorded by the
Investigating Officer was not placed for consideration before the City
Commissioner of Police, Madras because only a report of the Vigilance F
Department was placed before him. The High Court came to the finding that
although the Personal Assistant to the City Commissioner of Police, Madras
has deposed that proper sanction was accorded by the City Commissioner of
Police after going though the detailed report of vigilance, but the statements
recorded during the investigation was not placed before sanctioning authority
and therefore, there was no proper application of mind by sanctioning authority, G
as such sanction was invalid. But in the present case, the sanction order itself
discloses the facts that the incumbent is befog prosecuted under the provisions
of the Prevention of Corruption Act for accumulating moveable and immovable
assets worth Rs. 4, 0 I, 454.58 paise which is disproportionate to his known
source of income and he has failed to give satisfactory account for the same. H
1172 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2005] 2 S.C.R.

A In the present case, facts mentioned in sanction order are eloquent for
constituting prima facie offence under Section 5(2) read with Section 5( 1)(e) ',
of the Act. Therefore, there is due application of mind by sanctioning authority
and the sanction is valid.

Learned counsel for appellant submitted that offence was alleged to
B have been committed in 1986, now after lapse of almost 19 years would it
be advisable to proceed with the matter. It is a matter of corruption and we
cannot give any latitude i.n such matters.

Therefore, under these circumstances, we are of opinion that the view
taken by learned Single Judge of the High Court appears to be justified and
C there is no ground to interfere in the present appeal. Accordingly, the appeal
is dismissed. However, nothing said herein or the High Court excepting on
the point of sanction should influence the trial court's decision on merits.

The adverse observations made against the trial Judge are deleted.
D N.J. Appeal dismissed.