Collector Cannot Cyclostyle Anti-Corruption Bureau’s Draft To Sanction Prosecution, Must Apply Independent Mind:...
⚖️ Legal Background:
🛡️ Sanction for Prosecution under Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988:
Before a public servant can be prosecuted under the Prevention of Corruption Act, prior sanction from the competent authority (such as a Collector, Secretary, or Department Head) is mandatory.
This is a safeguard to prevent vexatious or frivolous prosecutions.
However, this power to grant or deny sanction is not a mechanical or clerical task.
🧠 "Must Apply Independent Mind" – What Does It Mean?
This means:
The sanctioning authority must not blindly accept the draft note or recommendation from the investigating agency (like the ACB).
The authority must independently examine the material and apply its own judgment to decide whether prosecution is justified.
🚫 "Cannot Cyclostyle":
The term “cyclostyle” here is metaphorical, referring to the mechanical reproduction or rubber-stamping of a draft.
If the Collector simply signs or reproduces the ACB's draft sanction without due application of mind, the sanction is invalid in the eyes of law.
🏛️ Important Case Laws:
1. Vineet Narain v. Union of India (1998) 1 SCC 226
Though this case primarily dealt with the independence of the CBI, it emphasized accountability in decision-making by public authorities, especially regarding corruption investigations.
It reinforced that sanctioning authorities must act judiciously and not as mere post offices.
2. State of Himachal Pradesh v. Nishant Sareen (2010) 14 SCC 527
The Supreme Court held that the competent authority must not act mechanically.
Sanction granted without considering the material on record and without due application of mind is invalid.
3. State of Punjab v. Mohammed Iqbal Bhatti (2009) 17 SCC 92
Here, the court quashed a prosecution because the sanctioning authority had merely approved a draft sanction order prepared by the vigilance department without independent application of mind.
4. Manju Surana v. Sunil Arora & Ors. (2018) 5 SCC 557
The Supreme Court emphasized that sanction for prosecution is not a mere formality, and any order passed casually or mechanically is not legally sustainable.
⚠️ Consequences of Not Applying Independent Mind:
If a sanctioning authority (like a Collector) rubber-stamps a draft from ACB, the sanction becomes invalid.
As a result, the entire prosecution may collapse, since a valid sanction is a pre-condition for prosecution under the Prevention of Corruption Act.
Courts can quash the entire criminal case on this ground alone.
📌 Example Scenario:
Let’s say the ACB investigates a government clerk for allegedly taking a bribe. It prepares a detailed report and a draft sanction order requesting the District Collector to approve prosecution.
If the Collector simply signs off on the draft without reviewing the report, considering evidence, or applying personal judgment, then:
It is a mechanical act.
The sanction is vitiated.
If the accused challenges it in court, the court may quash the proceedings due to invalid sanction.
✅ What is Expected from the Sanctioning Authority:
Review the evidence collected by ACB.
Assess whether a prima facie case for prosecution is made out.
Record reasons (at least internally) showing application of mind.
Issue an independent sanction order, not just a copy-paste from the draft.
🔚 Conclusion:
The phrase "Collector cannot cyclostyle ACB's draft" is a judicial warning against mechanical approvals of prosecution. The sanctioning authority must act with responsibility, fairness, and legal mindfulness.
Failure to do so can render the sanction order void, leading to the collapse of prosecution, no matter how strong the evidence may be.
RELATED Blog
0 comments