Sanction to prosecute public servant, once denied, can't be granted sans new material: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court recently held that once sanction to prosecute a public servant under Section 197 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) is denied, it cannot subsequently be granted based on the same material that was examined earlier to deny sanction [State of Telangana v. C Shobha Rani]..A Bench of Justices MM Sundresh and Aravind Kumar said that it is not open to the competent authority - which earlier refused to grant prosecution - to later approve the prosecution of a public servant in the absence of new material against the official."In the absence of any other contra material which weighed in the mind of the sanctioning authority, the same (subsequent sanction) cannot be sustained in the eye of law," the Court observed in its December 3 order..The case concerned an Assistant General Manager at the Bank of India who was among those accused of hatching a criminal conspiracy in irregularly extending certain credit facilities to a company.The bank official was booked under Sections 420 (cheating), 467 (forgery of valuable security), 468 (forgery for purpose of cheating), 471 (using as genuine a forged document or electronic record) read with 120B (criminal conspiracy) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (PC Act).Notably, before the bank official could be prosecuted, a sanction was required under Section 197 of the CrPC, which is aimed at protecting public servants from frivolous criminal prosecution for acts done during the course of the official duties. .On January 24, 2015, the General Manager of the bank (sanctioning authority in this case) refused to grant sanction to prosecute the bank official after noting that the allegations cited against her were only procedural lapses and did not indicate any criminal conspiracy. However, on November 9, 2016, the General Manager granted sanction to prosecute the bank official without recording any reasons, based on the same material upon which he had earlier refused to grant sanction. Aggrieved, the bank official moved the Telangana High Court for relief, which quashed the entire case against her in 2022. .The State then challenged the High Court order before the Supreme Court. It argued that there is no bar on the grant of subsequent sanction. It further contended that other than offences under the PC Act, the bank official was also booked under various IPC offences. The State contended that the High Court should not have quashed the entire case merely on the ground of invalid sanction, without going examining the merits of the charges under the IPC. .The top court partly agreed. On the aspect of sanction, the Bench affirmed the High Court's view that once sanction under Section 197, CrPC has been denied, it cannot later be granted without there being any new material. However, it also agreed with the State's stance that no sanction was required to prosecute the bank officer for the IPC offences, in this case. Therefore, the top court opined that the High Court should not have quashed the entire case without going into the merits of the IPC charges.It, therefore, partly allowed the State's appeal and asked the High Court to examine if the IPC charges would stand against the accused bank official. .[Read Order].Follow Bar and Bench channel on WhatsAppDownload the Bar and Bench Mobile app for instant access to the latest legal news.