The Allahabad High Court has made a significant ruling, stating that obtaining prior sanction for lodging an FIR and investigation against civil servants is not mandatory. The court clarified that even if sanction is required for initiating legal proceedings, it should be obtained when submitting the charge sheet before a Magistrate and when the Magistrate takes cognisance of the matter. The ruling was made while dismissing an anticipatory bail plea filed by an individual named Ranjeet, who allegedly obtained three passports under different names.
Justice Krishan Pahal, in passing the order, emphasized that there is no obligatory requirement to secure prior sanction for the institution of FIR and investigation, even against a public servant, as per the mandate of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The ruling applies equally to individuals charged under the Passport Act, 1967.
The applicant had sought anticipatory bail in connection with an FIR against him for alleged offences under Section 420 (cheating) and other sections of the IPC and under Section 12 of the Passport Act. The High Court referred to previous cases and noted that the relevant time for sanction to prosecute under the Passport Act is when the court is about to take cognisance of the offence, hence the applicant’s objections to the validity of the sanction and the authority of the officer who granted it are unfounded.
The court also observed that valid sanction is necessary before taking cognisance of enumerated offences, but argued that no sanction is needed for the investigation in this case. Additionally, the court highlighted that the criteria for granting anticipatory bail under Section 438 of CrPC differs from those of other bails under Section 439 of CrPC, and that while anticipatory bail aims to protect individual rights, it poses a challenge in balancing individual rights with the interests of justice.
The ruling by the Allahabad High Court has far-reaching implications for the initiation of legal proceedings against civil servants, as well as for the application of anticipatory bail. The court’s interpretation of the requirement for obtaining prior sanction and the timing of its necessity has provided clarity on a significant legal matter, and is likely to impact future cases involving similar circumstances.
In conclusion, the ruling sets a precedent for the handling of cases involving civil servants and individuals charged under specific acts, and sheds light on the intricacies of the legal process, particularly in the context of anticipatory bail.
