The Allahabad High Court (Lucknow Bench) has dismissed a petition by a former bank branch manager challenging the prosecution sanction granted against him in a CBI case, and imposed costs of ₹50,000. The Court held that raising the same challenge again after a Division Bench had already rejected it amounted to forum shopping and a gross abuse of the process of law.
Justice Subhash Vidyarthi also held that a delay in granting prosecution sanction is not, by itself, a ground to quash criminal proceedings.
Background of the Case
The case arose from a complaint by a State Bank of India Regional Manager against M/s Shivang Carpet Private Limited and its directors. The complaint alleged that they cheated the bank and misappropriated funds of ₹7,40,07,994 against fifteen export bills.
The CBI filed a charge-sheet against six persons, including the petitioner, Hemant Kumar Prasad. He was the branch manager of the erstwhile State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur. The charge-sheet alleged that he processed and negotiated 12 export bills on mere photocopies, without following the prescribed procedure.
Sanction for his prosecution was granted on 29.09.2021. The petitioner first challenged this sanction through a writ petition, which a Division Bench dismissed on 16.06.2026. He then asked the trial court to declare the sanction illegal. The trial court rejected that application, holding that the validity of the sanction would be decided at the final stage in light of the evidence. He then approached the High Court under Section 482 CrPC / Section 528 BNSS.
Arguments Before the Court
Advocate Desh Mitra Anand, appearing for the petitioner, argued that the sanction was granted after an unexplained delay of about 27 months, beyond the permissible four-month period. He also relied on the sanctioning authority’s cross-examination. He argued that it showed the authority had merely signed an order prepared by the vigilance department, without applying his own mind.
Advocate Sharad Dwivedi appeared for the State Bank of India and Advocate Anuuj Taandon for the CBI. They raised a preliminary objection that a second petition against the same sanction order was not maintainable after the Division Bench’s dismissal. Taandon also relied on the Supreme Court’s judgment in State v. G. Easwaran (2025 INSC 397).
Allahabad High Court on Prosecution Sanction
The Court held that the trial court was bound by the Division Bench’s decision and had committed no error. It observed that if the petitioner was dissatisfied, his only remedy was to approach the Supreme Court. It added that “it was not open for the petitioner to raise the same point again before the trial court and doing so amounts to an abuse of the process of law.”
On the delay, the Court relied on the Supreme Court’s ruling in Vijay Rajmohan v. CBI, which states that “The consequence of non-compliance with this mandatory requirement shall not be quashing of the criminal proceeding for that very reason.” The Court therefore rejected this ground.
Relying on Parkash Singh Badal, Dinesh Kumar and Ashok Kumar Aswal, the Court noted that challenges to an existing sanction order on grounds such as non-application of mind must be decided during the trial.
Dwivedi placed before the Court extracts from SBI’s Vigilance Manual. Considering these along with the DoPT Office Memoranda of 01.03.2019 and 02.12.2020, the Court held that the “disciplinary authority / appointing authority of the State Bank of India does not have the authority to decline sanction for prosecution of any accused employee.” Since the authority had acted on CVC advice under these rules, the Court said it could not be held that sanction was granted without application of mind.
Outcome
Calling the petitioner’s repeated efforts a case that “amounts to forum shopping, besides being a gross abuse of process of law”, the Court dismissed the petition with costs of ₹50,000. The costs must be deposited within 30 days. If they are not paid, they will be recovered as arrears of land revenue. The amount will be sent to the Children’s Home (Girls), Lucknow.
Case Title: Hemant Kumar Prasad v. Prosecution Sanctioning Authority Thru. The General Manager SBI Lucknow and 3 Others
Case No.: Application U/S 528 BNSS No. 6813 of 2026
Bench: Justice Subhash Vidyarthi
Date: October 13, 2026
