Guidelines to be followed by the authorities competent to accord sanction for prosecution u/s. 19 of the PC Act.

No. 005/VGL/11
Central Vigilance Commission
Coordination I
*****
Satarkta Bhawan, Block ‘A’
INA, New Delhi-110023
The, 12
th
 May, 2005.
OFFICE ORDER NO. 31/5/05
Sub:- Guidelines to be followed by the authorities  competent to accord
sanction for prosecution u/s. 19 of the PC Act.
……….
The Commission has been concerned that there have been serious
delays in according sanction for prosecution under  section 19 of the PC Act
and u/s 197 of CrPC by the competent authorities.  The time limit prescribed by
the Hon’ble Supreme Court for this is 3 months generally speaking.   The
Commission feels this delay could be partly due to the lack of appreciation of
what the competent authority is expected to do while processing such
requests.

There have been a number of decisions of the Supreme Court in which the
law has been clearly laid down on this issue:-
1. Jagjit Singh Vs. State of Punjab, 1996 Cr.L.J. 2962.
2. State of Bihar Vs. P.P. Sharma, AIR 1991 SC 1260.
3. Superintendent of Police (CBI) Vs. Deepak Chowdhary, AIR 1996 SC
186.
4. Vineet Narain Vs. Union of India, AIR 1998 SC 889.
2.  The guidelines to be followed by the sanctioning authority, as declared
by the Supreme Court are summarized hereunder:-
i) Grant of sanction is an administrative act.   The purpose is to protect the
public servant from harassment by frivolous or vexatious prosecution and not
to shield the corrupt.   The question of giving opportunity to the public
servant at that stage does not arise.   The sanctioning authority has only
to see whether the facts would prima-facie constitutes the offence.
II) The competent authority cannot embark upon an inquiry to judge the truth of
the allegations on the basis of representation which may be filed by the
accused person before the Sanctioning Authority, by asking the I.O. to offer
his comments or to further investigate the matter in the light of representation
made by the accused person or by otherwise holding  a parallel
investigation/enquiry by calling for the record/report of his department.
iii) When an offence alleged to have been committed under the P.C. Act has
been investigated by the SPE, the report of the IO is invariably scrutinized by the DIG, IG and thereafter by DG (CBI). Then the matter is further scrutinized
by the concerned Law Officers in CBI.
iv) When the matter has been investigated by such a specialized agency and the
report of the IO of such agency has been scrutinized so many times at such
high levels, there will hardly be any case where the Government would find it
difficult to disagree with the request for sanction.
v)  The accused person has the liberty to file representations when the
matter is pending investigation.  When the representations so made have
already been considered and the comments of the IO are already before the
Competent Authority, there can be no need for any further comments of IO on
any further representation.
vi)  A representation subsequent to the completion of investigation is not
known to law, as the law is well established that the material to be
considered by the Competent Authority is the material which was
collected during investigation and was placed before the Competent
Authority.
vii) However, if in any case, the Sanctioning Authority after consideration of the
entire material placed before it, entertains any doubt on any point the
competent authority may specify the doubt with sufficient particulars and may
request the Authority who has sought sanction to clear the doubt.  But that
would be only to clear the doubt in order that the authority may apply its mind
proper, and not for the purpose of considering the  representations of the
accused which may be filed while the matter is pending sanction.
viii) If the Sanctioning Authority seeks the comments of the IO while the matter is
pending before it for sanction, it will almost be impossible for the Sanctioning
Authority to adhere to the time limit allowed by the Supreme Court in Vineet
Narain’s case.
The Commission has directed that these guidelines as at para 2(i)-
(vii)should be noted by all concerned authorities for their guidance and strict
compliance.
           Sd/-
(Sujit Banerjee)
    Secretary
To
 Secretaries of All Ministries/Departments
 CMDs/CEOs of all PSEs/PSUs/PSBs/Financial Institutions
 Autonomous Organisations
 All CVOs

Print Page