In a significant ruling, the Allahabad High Court quashed the prosecution of Sanjaya Dikshit, a former Deputy General Manager of the State Bank of India, on grounds of an invalid sanction order. The judgment, delivered by Justice Pankaj Bhatia, emphasized the necessity of a valid sanction for prosecuting public servants under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
Case Background
The case, Criminal Revision No. 529 of 2024, involved the revisionist Sanjaya Dikshit, who was accused of accepting a bribe of Rs. 6 lakhs for showing undue favors to M/s SRS Investment Company. The First Information Report (FIR) was lodged on August 13, 2009, by the General Manager of State Bank of India, Lucknow, leading to a charge sheet filed on March 25, 2011.
Legal Issues
The primary legal issue revolved around the validity of the sanction order required under Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The defense, represented by advocates Chandra Bhushan Pandey and Asim Kumar Singh, argued that the sanction order dated April 17, 2012, was not issued by a competent authority and lacked reference to an earlier refusal of sanction dated August 30, 2011.
Court’s Analysis and Decision
Justice Pankaj Bhatia meticulously analyzed the legal framework governing the requirement of sanction for prosecuting public servants. The court referred to several precedents, including:
– State of Himachal Pradesh v. Nishant Sareen: Emphasized that a change of opinion on the same material cannot justify a fresh sanction order.
– Dinesh Kumar v. Chairman, Airport Authority of India: Highlighted that the validity of the sanction should be considered during the trial.
– Vijay Rajmohan v. State Represented by the Inspector of Police, CBI, ACB, Chennai: Discussed the advisory role of the Central Vigilance Commission (CVC) in the sanction process.
The court found that the April 17, 2012, sanction order was issued by A. Krishna Kumar, Managing Director & Group Executive (National Banking), who was not the appointing authority. The court noted the absence of any reference to the earlier refusal of sanction and the lack of fresh material justifying a reconsideration.
Conclusion
The High Court quashed the prosecution against Sanjaya Dikshit, ruling that the sanction order was invalid due to non-application of mind and being issued by an unauthorized person. The court allowed the discharge application filed by the revisionist, thereby setting aside the trial court’s order dated April 20, 2024.
Also Read
Case Details
– Case Number: Criminal Revision No. 529 of 2024
– Parties: Sanjaya Dikshit (Revisionist) vs. Central Bureau of Investigation (Opposite Party)
– Bench: Justice Pankaj Bhatia
– Counsel for Revisionist: Chandra Bhushan Pandey, Asim Kumar Singh
– Counsel for Opposite Party: Anurag Kumar Singh
