Whether sanction for prosecution under the Prevention of Corruption Act is invalidated if there is a typographical error in the designation of the accused in the sanction order?

 It is true that instead of the Joint Director, the designation of the petitioner has been shown as the Additional Director. It appears to be a typographical error. All the other details of the petitioner are correct. For the simple reason that there is a typographical error in showing the designation of the petitioner, it cannot be said that the sanction issued is bad. The question whether the sanctioning authority has applied his mind or not, is something which cannot be agitated in a writ petition. If the petitioner has got a case that the sanctioning authority accorded sanction without applying his mind, the petitioner can very well cross-examine the sanctioning authority when he will be examined during trial. {Para 8}

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(CRL.) NO. 181 OF 2023

K.SASI, Vs  STATE OF KERALA

PRESENT

 DR. JUSTICE KAUSER EDAPPAGATH

 Dated: 27TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2023 

This Writ Petition (Crl.) has been filed challenging Ext.P2 sanction for the prosecution granted by the 4th respondent under Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act (for short 'the P.C. Act').

2. The petitioner is the sole accused in V.C.No.6/2015/SCE of

the Vigilance and Anti Corruption Special Cell Bureau, Ernakulam, now pending as C.C.No.4 of 2020 on the files of the Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge (Vigilance), Thrissur.

3. The offences alleged against the petitioner are punishable

under Sections 13 (2) r/w 13(1) of the P.C. Act.

4. The prosecution case in short is that the petitioner while

working as Government Servant as Inspector of Factories and Boilers at Thrissur, during the period from 01.01.2004 to 28.02.2015 has amassed wealth to the tune of Rs.82,81,561/- which was

disproportionate to his known source of income and thus committed

the offence.

5. The 4th respondent issued Ext.P2 sanction order to

prosecute the petitioner invoking Section 19(1)(b) of the P.C Act. It is challenging the said sanction order, this Crl.M.C has been filed.

6. I have heard Sri.Sarin Panicker, the learned counsel for the

petitioner and Sri.A.Rajesh, the learned Special Public Prosecutor.

7. The petitioner challenges Ext.P2 sanction order mainly on

two grounds:-

(i) In the sanction order, designation of the petitioner has been

wrongly shown as the 'Additional Director' in Factories and

Boilers instead of the 'Joint Director'.

(ii) The 4th respondent did not apply his mind while granting

sanction.

8. It is true that instead of the Joint Director, the designation

of the petitioner has been shown as the Additional Director. It appears to be a typographical error. All the other details of the petitioner are correct. For the simple reason that there is a typographical error in showing the designation of the petitioner, it cannot be said that the sanction issued is bad. The question whether the sanctioning authority has applied his mind or not, is something which cannot be agitated in a writ petition. If the petitioner has got a case that the sanctioning authority accorded sanction without applying his mind, the petitioner can very well cross-examine the sanctioning authority when he will be examined during trial.

I find no merit in the Writ Petition (Crl.) and accordingly, it is

dismissed.

Print Page