CASE TITLE : THE STATE OF TELANGANA VERSUS C. SHOBHA RANI
The Supreme Court recently held that once a sanction to prosecute a public servant has been denied, it cannot be granted again unless new material is presented to the competent authority justifying the subsequent sanction.
The bench comprising Justice MM Sundresh and Justice Aravind Kumar heard a criminal appeal filed by the State of Telangana against the High Court’s decision quashing criminal proceedings against the respondent (C. Shobha Rani), who had been charged under multiple sections of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), including Sections 420 (cheating), 467 (forgery of valuable security), 468 (forgery for purpose of cheating), 471 (using as genuine a forged document), 120B (criminal conspiracy), and Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(c) and (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
The appellant-state argued that the High Court had quashed the proceedings without examining the merits of the case, solely on the grounds that the subsequent grant of sanction to prosecute the respondent was vitiated. This was because it was based on the same material that had been presented when the earlier sanction was denied. The High Court held that a mere change of opinion, by itself, could not justify the grant of subsequent sanction.
The primary issue before the Supreme Court was whether the High Court erred in quashing the charges under the IPC and Prevention of Corruption Act, and if the sanction granted subsequently was valid despite being based on the same material that had earlier been rejected.
The Court agreed with the High Court’s opinion on the refusal to grant subsequent sanction and said that a mere change of opinion was insufficient to sustain the sanction, as there was no new evidence or grounds presented that would justify reversing the decision of grant of previous sanction.
