- (1.) K. L. Sharma, J. In this application under Section 482, Or. P. C. the applicant has challenged the validity of prosecution sanction according by the Government for the offences under Sections 500, 504 and 506,i. P. C. and of the order dated 18-2-1995 passed by the Sessions Judge, Gorkahpur pending before him whereby the application of the applicant for dismissing the complaint against him was rejected.
(2.) I have heard Mr. A. D. Giri, senior Advocate for the applicant as well as learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State and perused the material brought on record. The learned senior Advocate Mr. Giri has contended that the prosecution sanction has been mechanically granted with out applying mind and does not disclose the authority who has accorded the sanction and as such it is illegal and cannot be made a foundation for prosecution before the learned Sessions Judge, Gorakhpur. In support of his contention Mr. A. D. Giri has invited my attention to the decision of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of P. C. Joshi v. State of U. P. A. I. R. 1961 S. C. 387. The relevant paragraph 4 is reproduced below: 1834 It is not disputed that the Home Secretary was authorised to sanction a complaint for defemation of a Minister of the Government of Uttar Pradesh The evidence clearly disclose that the Home Secretary had applied his mind to all the material facts before him and had then granted the sanction. Mere production of a document which sets out the names of the persons to be contravened and the purporting to prosecuted and the provisions of the of the statute alleged to be contravened, and purporting to bear the signature of 8n officer competent to grant the sanction where such sanction is a condition precedent to the exercise of jurisdiction does not invest the court with jurisdiction to try the offence. If the facts which constitute the charge do not appear on the face of the sanction, it must be established by extraneous evidence that those facts were placed before the authority competent to grant the sanction and that the authority applied his mind to those facts before giving sanction. In the present case, the facts constituting the charge appear on the face of the sanction and evidence has also been led that the facts were placed before the sanctioning authority, that the authority considered the facts and sanctioned the prosecution. Mr. AD. Giri cited another decision seeking support for his contention of Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of Manmdhan Singh Johal v. State, AIR 1969 Punj and Har 225. In this case sanction of Government for prosecution was challenged on the ground that it was made by the person not authorised and the order made by the Home Secretary without reference to Minister In charge of the depart ment was declared invalid. The Hon'ble single Judge examined the rules of business framed by the Governor of the State and case to the conclusion that the Home Secretary has not been delegated the power to transact the business without reference to me Minister In charge of that department and there are no Standing Order or direction issued by the Minister In charge authorising tie Home Secretary to accord sanction for prosecution. The Hon'ble Single Judge reached inescapable conclusion that the Home Secretary could not will with this policy decision in the case and accord necessary sanction under Section 196-A (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (1898) on behalf of the Government with a reference to the Minister In charge of the depart ment.
(3.) THE contention whether sanction has been accorded by the Joint Secretary or by the Government can be appreciated only in the light of the contents of the order, THErefore, it is necessary to reproduce the alleged sanction contained in Annexure 3 to this present proceedings. It reads as follows: On bare reading of this sanction letter it is crystal clear that Joint Secretary to the U. P. Government has merely conveyed the decision of the Government to the District Magistrate, Gorakhpur on the subject relating to the sanction for prosecution of Sri Virendra Pratap Shahi and others at Gorakhpur. The language used by the Joint Secretary speaks that the Government has no objection to the prosecution of Sri Virendra Pratap Shahi, Yogendra Chauhan and Tribhuwan Mishra. It is not correct on the part of the learned Advocate to say that the Joint Secretary has issued this letter on his own authority. In fact, the Joint Secretary to the Government is an officer authorised by the Governor of the State by a notification issued under Article 299 of the Constitution of India to authenticate and communicate the orders passed by the Government. There is nothing to the contrary on record and therefore, I do not find substance in this contention.;