State of Andhra Pradesh V. K.S. Reddy
(2005)6 SCC 133
Case Summary
Facts
The Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB) filed a report to sanction the prosecution of the 4th respondent, alleging disproportionate assets. The 4th respondent claimed the ACB did not consider his legitimate income. The then Chief Minister rejected the sanction request, citing prior permissions for property transactions by the 4th respondent. The petitioner filed a Writ Petition questioning the refusal to grant sanction, claiming it was in public interest.
Issues
1. Whether the ACB’s Report and Findings Established a Prima Facie Case for Prosecution of the 4th Respondent under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988?
2. Can Material Other than the ACB’s Report (such as the 4th respondent’s representation) be Considered by the Sanctioning Authority in Granting Prosecution Sanction?
3. Whether the Petitioner, a Practicing Advocate, Has the Locus Standi to File the Writ Petition in Public Interest?
4. Whether the Closure of FIR Impacts the Government's Decision Not to Sanction Prosecution?
Relevant Laws and Provisions
1. Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988:
o Section 19: Deals with the sanction required for prosecuting public servants under the Act.
o Section 13: Defines the offense of a public servant committing corruption by acquiring disproportionate assets.
2. Indian Penal Code (IPC):
o Section 5(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act addresses the issue of public servants amassing disproportionate wealth.
3. Constitution of India:
o Article 226: Provides jurisdiction to High Courts to issue writs for enforcement of fundamental rights and for any other purpose.
Court Reasoning
1. Examination of ACB Report: The Court stated that it is not for the High Court to assess the adequacy of the ACB's report. The sanctioning authority must decide if a prima facie case exists based on the material provided by the ACB.
2. Material for Sanction: The Court ruled that the sanctioning authority must consider only the ACB's report and not external representations. It cannot conduct its own investigation or rely on additional materials.
3. Locus Standi: The Court confirmed that the petitioner, a practicing advocate, had the right to file the petition in public interest. Allegations against the petitioner were deemed unsubstantiated.
4. Non-deferral of Writ Petition: The Court emphasized the need for prompt action, rejecting the request to defer proceedings until the disposal of another related writ petition.
5. Government's Discretion on Sanction: The Court noted that the Government must exercise its discretion based on the ACB’s report and cannot refuse sanction arbitrarily.
6. Closure of FIR: The Court found the closure of the FIR premature, instructing the Government to reconsider the request for sanction afresh.
Judgment
The Court allowed the writ petition, quashed the refusal for sanction, and directed the Government to reconsider the ACB's request within three months. The Court upheld the petitioner’s locus standi and emphasized prompt action against corruption.
-Gayatri.
Comentarios