The Supreme Court has upheld the conviction of a retired public servant who challenged his conviction due to alleged flaws in the sanction order. The Court clarified that minor edits made to the draft sanction order did not affect its substance, and therefore, the order remained valid.
A bench of Justices Dipankar Datta and Manmohan emphasized that the sanctioning authority had properly applied its mind while issuing the sanction. The Court ruled that minor alterations in the sanction report did not amount to a failure of justice and could not justify the accused’s acquittal.
The Court observed:
"Even otherwise, merely because there is any omission, error or irregularity in the matter of granting sanction, that does not affect the validity of the proceedings unless the court records its own satisfaction that such error, omission or irregularity has resulted in a failure of justice."
The judgment further clarified that if the sanctioning authority is satisfied with the draft order, minor changes to ensure alignment between form and substance do not invalidate the order. The Court rejected the claim that there was a lack of application of mind by the sanctioning authority.
Read also: Supreme Court: PMLA Accused Has Right to Be Heard Before Court Takes Cognizance Under BNSS
Case Background
The appellant, a retired public servant, was convicted in 2004 by a Special Court for accepting a ₹500 bribe to expedite land record extracts in 2000. His conviction was upheld by the Bombay High Court in September 2024, following which he appealed to the Supreme Court.
In his defense, he argued that the sanction for prosecution was granted mechanically without proper consideration. However, the Supreme Court dismissed these arguments, stating that the sanctioning authority had made only minor adjustments to the draft order, which did not impact the validity of the sanction.
Citing the case of Manzoor Ali Khan v. Union of India, (2015) 2 SCC 33, the Court emphasized that the purpose of sanction is to protect honest officials but not to shield corrupt practices. The Court highlighted that the core requirement for a valid sanction is the satisfaction of the sanctioning authority about the existence of a prima facie case.
Read also: Supreme Court Demotes Andhra Deputy Collector for Defying HC, Fines Him ₹1 Lakh for Slum Demolition
“There is a legal impediment to prosecute a public servant for corruption if there is no sanction. Grant of sanction is an administrative function based on the subjective satisfaction of the sanctioning authority after due application of mind to the materials placed before him.”
The Supreme Court’s decision makes it clear that minor edits in a sanction order do not vitiate it, provided they do not alter its substance or cause a failure of justice.
Case Title: DASHRATH VERSUS THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
Appearance:
Ms. Meenakshi Arora, senior counsel for the appellant
Ms. Rukhmini Bobde, counsel for the respondent-State
