Mechanical approval of prosecution sanction without independent application of mind vitiates the entire criminal proceedings.

The State of Rajasthan appealed an acquittal judgment dated 26.03.2012 passed by the Special Judge, PCA Cases, Jodhpur

The prosecution alleged that on 23.04.2006, the respondent, a Gram Sevak-cum-Secretary, demanded illegal gratification from the complainant for releasing the second installment of a dwelling unit allotment under the Indira Awaas Yojana

A trap was organized, currency notes were recovered, and a charge-sheet was filed following a prosecution sanction

The respondent claimed the sanction was granted mechanically. The trial court acquitted the respondent, leading to this appeal

1. Whether the sanction for prosecution granted under Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act was valid or a mere mechanical exercise

2. Whether the findings of the trial court regarding the failure to establish demand and conscious acceptance were perverse or required interference under appellate jurisdiction

The Court applied Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, which mandates prior sanction as a jurisdictional precondition for prosecuting a public servant

It relied on State of Karnataka v. Ameerjan and Mohd. Iqbal Ahmad v. State of Andhra Pradesh, which establish that sanction requires a conscious application of mind and independent satisfaction, rather than mechanical approval

Furthermore, it applied the principles for interfering with acquittals as laid down in Mallappa & Ors. v. State of Karnataka, emphasizing that if two views are possible, the one favoring the accused must prevail

The Court observed that the sanctioning process was fundamentally flawed because the investigating agency provided a ready-made "draft" (Prarup) to the sanctioning authority

Upon comparing the draft (Ex. D/2) with the final sanction order (Ex. P/9), the Court found they were materially identical in punctuation, language, and composition

This indicated that the authority merely affixed a signature without autonomous evaluation or personal satisfaction, rendering the safeguard of Section 19 an "empty formality"

Since a valid sanction is a jurisdictional trigger, its absence or mechanical nature vitiates the entire prosecution edifice

Applying Mallappa, the Court found that the trial court's appreciation of evidence was judicious and holistic, and since the legal gateway (sanction) was non-est, the acquittal was a plausible view that did not warrant reversal

The Court held that the prosecution sanction was a mechanical exercise devoid of independent application of mind, thereby failing the jurisdictional requirement of Section 19 of the Act

The findings of the trial court were held to be sound and cogent, with no manifest perversity or illegality

The record was ordered to be returned forthwith