The bench of Justice BR Gavai and PS Narsimha held that "non-compliance with a mandatory period cannot and should not automatically lead to the quashing of criminal proceedings because the prosecution of a public servant for corruption has an element of public interest having a direct bearing on the rule of law. This is also a non-sequitur. It must also be kept in mind that the complainant or victim has no other remedy available for judicial redressal if the criminal proceedings stand automatically quashed. At the same time, a decision to grant deemed sanction may cause prejudice to the rights of the accused as there would also be non-application of mind in such cases."

Considering the importance of the provision of law and the accountability of the people in not acting on the issue of sanction, the Court held that "upon expiry of the three months and the additional one-month period, the aggrieved party, be it the complainant, accused or victim, would be entitled to approach the concerned writ court. They are entitled to seek appropriate remedies, including directions for action on the request for sanction and for the corrective measure on accountability that the sanctioning authority bears. This is especially crucial if the non-grant of sanction is withheld without reason, resulting in the stifling of a genuine case of corruption. Simultaneously, the CVC shall enquire into the matter in the exercise of its powers under Section 8(1)(e) and (f) and take such corrective action as it is
empowered under the CVC Act."

The Court then ordered that the period of three months, extended by one more month for legal consultation, is mandatory. The consequence of non-compliance with this mandatory requirement shall not be quashing of the criminal proceeding for that very reason. The competent authority shall be Accountable for the delay and be subject to judicial review and administrative action by the CVC under Section 8(1)(f) of the CVC Act. 

Dismissing the appeal filed against the order of the Madras High Court the Apex Court permitted the petitioner to raise and seek such remedies as are permissible in law on the basis of the principles laid down in the present case. The Appellant challenges the order of the High Court of Judicature at Madras allowing a criminal revision petition filed by the State against an order of the Trial Court4, discharging the Appellant on the ground that the order of sanction under Section 19 of the PC Act, is vitiated due to non-application of mind by the sanctioning authority. 

The Court noted the facts of the case that CBI made an application for sanction for prosecution on 08.09.2015 and the same was granted on 24.07.2015 i.e. after one year and 10 months. The Appellant did not question the legality of the delay either before the Trial or the High Court but chose to confine the challenge only to the appointing authority acting under the dictation of the CVC, there was no occasion for CBI to respond to the submission of delay and the question was raised for the first time before the Supreme Court.

Case Details:-

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1746 OF 2022
ARISING OUT OF SLP (CRL) NO. 1568 OF 2022
VIJAY RAJMOHAN ...APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
STATE REPRESENTED BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, CBI, ACB, CHENNAI, TAMIL NADU ...RESPONDENT(S

Read the Complete judgment on the following link:-

https://main.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2022/3264/3264_2022_15_1501_38812_Judgement_11-Oct-2022.pdf