The Kerala High Court in the case K.Sasi v. State of Kerala rep. by Chief Secretary to the Govt & Ors observed and has held that merely because there is a typographical error in showing the designation of the person accused in the sanction order for prosecuting such person under Section 19(1)(b) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, wherein it cannot be stated that the sanction order is bad.
The bench headed by Justice Kauser Edappagath while passing the order observed that this being a simple reason that there is a typographical error in showing the designation of the petitioner, wherein it cannot be stated that the sanction issued is bad. Before the court, the question being whether the sanctioning authority has applied his mind or not, is something which cannot be agitated in a writ petition.
In the present case, the petitioner who had been working as Inspector of Factories and Boilers at Thrissur, during the period from 01.01.2002 to 28.02.2015, wherein it is alleged amassed wealth to the tune for an amount of Rs.82,81,561/- which was being disproportionate for his known source of income. He was also being charged with offences punishable under Sections 13 (2) reading with Section 13(1) of the P.C. Act. Thus, a sanction order has been issued by Additional Secretary to the Government, Labour, and Skills Department (4th respondent), wherein the petitioner invoked Section 19(1)(b) of the P.C Act.
The observed and has also found that for the simple reason of a typographical error in the designation of the petitioner, the court stated that the sanction order could not be held to be bad. The court observed that the question being weather the sanctioning authority has applied his mind or not, is something which cannot be agitated in a writ petition. If the case has been got by the petitioner that the sanctioning authority accorded sanction without applying his mind, the petitioner can very well cross-examine the sanctioning authority when he will be examined during trial. Accordingly, the court dismissed the writ petition.
Advocate M.R. Sarin represented the petitioner. Special Public Prosecutor for VACB A. Rajesh appeared on behalf of the respondents.
