NEED FOR SANCTION OF PROSECUTION UNDER SECTION 19 OF THE PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION ACT, 1988 AND REQUIRED CODAL FORMALITIES, THERE OF.

RTI welfare group and volunteers working on the captioned subject of good governance and accountability under law code manual prefixed by the Constitution of India in this behalf are time to time complaining for the delay in deciding of cases lying pending with the Heads of the offices and the HOD from where basically under section 19 of the prevention of corruption Act, 1988 it is necessary for the prosecuting authority to have the previous sanction of the appropriate administrative authority for launching the prosecution against the defaulters and where for any reason what so ever any doubt arises whether the previous sanction as required should be given by the state government or Government of India or any other authority, as the case may be, such sanction shall be given by the Government or authority which would have been competent to remove the public servant from his office at the time when the offence was alleged to have been committed. The requirement of previous sanction is intended to afford a reasonable protection to a public servant, who in the course of strict and impartial discharge of his duties may offend persons and create enemies from frivolous, malicious or vexatious prosecution and to save him from unnecessary harassment or undue hardship which may result from inadequate appreciation by police authorities of the technicalities of the working of the department. The administrative authority alone is in a position to assess and weigh the accusation on the basis of the background of their own intimate knowledge of the work and conduct of the public servant. The sanctioning authority has an absolute discretion to grant or to withhold sanction after satisfying itself whether material placed before it discloses a proma facie case against the person sought to be prosecuted. The sanctioning authority is the sole judge of the material that is placed before it. If the facts placed before it are not sufficient to enable it to exercise its discretion properly, it may ask for more particulars. However, a public servant who is alleged to have committed an offence should be allowed to be proceeded against in a court of law, unless on the basis of facts placed before it the sanctioning authority considers that there is no case for launching a prosecution. No sanction is required in respect of former Government servant who is no longer in service. The sanction however, represents a deliberate decision of the competent sanctioning authority. The Courts expect that a sanction should ex-facie indicate that the sanctioning authority had before it all relevant facts on the basis of which prosecution was proposed to be launched and had applied its mind independently to all the facts and circumstances of the case before according its sanction. It is thought permissible to prove by evidence that the competent authority had applied its mind to the facts of the case , yet to avoid delays and expense and for the sake of convenience and uniformity of practice, two standard forms of the Vigilance manual, may be used with necessary changes.