VIVEK BATRA versus UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS
[2016] 8 S.C.R. 177, Supreme Court of India, 2016
Outcome: Dismissed (Dismissed)
Segment: Ratio
[2016] 8 S.C.R. 177 
VIVEK BATRA 
v. 
UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS 
(Criminal Appeal No. 2491 of2014) 
OCTOBER 18, 2016 
[RANJAN GOGOi AND PRAFULLA C. PANT, JJ.) 
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - s.19 and ss. 7, JO, 11, 
A 
B 
13 and 15 - Public Servant - Offence of criminal misconduct -
Assets disproportionate to the known sources of income - Petition 
C 
chaf/enging sanction for prosecution of appellant u!s.13 of the Act 
- Dismissed by High Court - Propriety - Held: Sanction cannot be 
held invalid only for the reason that in the administrative notings, 
different authorities have opined differently before the competent 
authority took the decision in the matter - There was proper 
application of mind on the part of the co1i1petent authority before 
D 
the sanction was accorded - No reason to interfere with impugned 
order of High Court - Government of India (Allocation of Business) 
Rules, 1961- rr.3(3), (4) - Central Vigilance Commission Act, 2003 
- s.8 (g). 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
E 
HELD: 1. The sanction cannot be held invalid only for the 
reason that in the administrative no tings different authorities have 
opined differently before the competent authority took the 
decision in the matter. It is not a case where the finance Minister 
was not the competent authority to grant the sanction. What is 
F 
required u/s.19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 is that 
for taking the cognizance of an offence, punishable u/ss. 7, 10, 
11, 13 and 15 of the
Act committed by the public servant, is 
necessary by the Central Govemment or the State Government, 
as the case may be, and in the case of a public servant, who is 
neither employed in connection with affairs of the Union or the G 
State, from the authority competent to remove him. Sub-section 
(2) of Section 19 of the Act provides that where for any reason 
whatsoever any doubt arises as to whether the previous sanction, 
as required under sub-section (1) should be given by the Central 
177 
H
178 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2016] 8 S.C.R. 
Government or the State Government or any authority, such 
sanction shall be given by that Government or authority which 
could have been competent to remove the public servant from 
his office at the time when the offence was alleged to have been 
committed. [Para 10][183-B-E] 
2. It is evident that there had been proper application of 
mind on the part of the competent authority before the sanction 
was accorded. Perusal of the record does not indicate that any 
decision was taken by the competent authority, at any point of 
time, not to grant sanction so as to give the decision to grant 
sanction the colour of a review of any such earlier order. The 
opinion ofCVC, which was reaffirmed and ultimately prevailed in 
according the sanction, cannot be said to be irrelevant for the 
reason that clause (g) of Section 8 of the Central Vigilance 
Commission Act, 2003 provides that it is one of the functions of 
the CVC to tender advice to the Central Government on such 
matters as may be referred to it by the Government. [Para 
11][184-C-D] 
Jasbir Singh Chhabra and Ors. v. State of Punjab and 
Ors. (2010) 4 SCC 192; Sethi Auto Service Station and 
another v. Delhi Development Authority and Ors. (2009) 
1 SCC 180: 2008 (14) SCR 598 - relied on. 
Nazir Ahmad v. King Emperor AIR 1936 PC 253; 
Bachhittar Singh v. The State of Punjab (1962) Suppl. 
3 SCR 713 - referred to. 
Case Law Reference 
AIR 1936 PC 253 
referred to
Para4 
(1962) Suppl. 3 SCR 713 
referred to 
Para 7 
(2010) 4 sec 192 
relied on 
Para8 
2008 (14) SCR 598 
relied on 
Para9 
G 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 
H 
2491 of2014. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 29.10.2013 of the High Court 
of Judicature at Bombay in Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 3654 of2012. 
K. K. Venugopal, Sr. Adv., Ms. Prachi V. Sharma, Ms. Suhasini
VIVEK BATRA v. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS 
179 
Sen, Ms. Shraddha Deshmukh, Pradeep Kumar Bakshi, Advs. for the 
A 
Appellant. 
Ms. Vibha Datta Makhija, A. K. Panda, Sr. Advs., Abhinav 
Mukherjee, Ms. Niranjana Singh, Ms. Disha Yaish, P. K. Dey, B. V. 
Balaram Das, Shailender Saini, M. K. Maroria, Mrs. Anil Katiyar, Advs. 
for the Respondents. 
B 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered .by 
PRAFULLA C. PANT, J. 1. This appeal is .directed against 
judgment and order dated 29.10.2013, passed by the High Court of 
Judicature at Bombay in Criminal Writ Petition No. 3654of2012, whereby 
the petition challenging the sanction dated 09.10.2012 for prosecution of C 
the appellant under Section 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 
is dismissed. 
2. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant is an officer of 
cadre of Indian Revenue Service (for short "IRS"), who entered into 
the service through 1992 batch. It is stated that an FIR RC No. BAI/ 
D 
20051ADO17 was registered on 04.04.2005 by Central Bureau of 
Investigation (CBI) (Respondent No. 4) in respect of disproportionate 
assets to the known sources of the appellant. The prosecution case is 
that the appellant has amassed the assets valued at Rs.1,27,38,3531- in 
his name and in the names of his wife and minor son during the check 
E 
period 04.01.1993 to 31.03.2004, which is disproportionate to the known 
sources of his income. The investigation took almost six years to get 
completed, which revealed that a sum of
Rs.56,30,296/- was invested 
by the appellant through Benami transactions in the names of his wife 
and son in two companies, namely, Mls.ARJ Impex Private Limited and 
Mis. Malik Hospitality Services Private Limited. According to CBI, the 
F 
appel !ant's wife Priyanka Batra incorporated a company, Mis. ARJ Impex 
Limited, to engage in import-expo11 business, and then sold her shares in 
the company to her two uncles, namely, Karan Singh and Vijay Kumar. 
The company's main source of income was unsecured loans obtained 
from various companies and individuals, many of which were never paid 
G 
back, several of these loans were from Priyanka Batra herself. Further, 
though the sale ofincome of the company was minimal, it acquired assets 
of Rs.85,70,7701- during the check period. It appears that Karan Singh 
and Vijay Kumar had incorporated another company called Mis. Malik 
Hospitality Services, whose main source of income was unsecured loans 
H
180 
A 
B 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2016] 8 S.C.R. 
from various individuals and companies. The company had acquired 
assets ofRs.20,52,013/- and had unrepaid loans ofRs.26, 77,000/-during 
the check period. Priyanka Batra was connected to Malik Hospitality 
Services as a public notice appeared in Nav Bharat Times, showing her 
as the intended purchaser of a property that was to be bought for the 
company. 
3. The appellant was arrested on 02.09 .20 I 0, and after about three 
days released on bail. He was placed under suspension by the authority 
concerned. The CBI sought sanction for prosecution of the appellant 
from the competent authority on which the file was processed, and at 
C the first stage on 03.05.2011 advice of Central Vigilance Commission 
(CVC) was sought by the Finance Department. On 01.09.2011, the 
CVC recommended that the sanction for prosecution be granted. The 
department concerned (Finance Department) endorsed the matter again 
on 01.11.2011 for fresh opinion of the CVC. But the CVC, through its 
Office Memorandum dated 02.11.2011, reiterated its opinion. The 
D Finance Department thereafter referred the matter to Department of 
Personnel and Training (for short "DOPT") for its views. The DOPT 
did not appreciate the stand of the Finance Department that the sanction 
should be accorded only if the CBI provides sufficient evidence and 
communicated the same through letter dated 29.03.2012. However, it 
E 
F 
G 
H 
observed that administrative warning
could be issued to the appellant for 
not intimating the transactions to Finance Department. Through letter 
dated 28.05.2012, the DOPT conveyed that insufficiency of evidence 
can be tested in the court of law and sanction for prosecution can be 
granted. Finally, the competent authority, vi de its order dated 09 .10.2012, 
granted sanction for prosecution of the appellant, who challenged the 
same before the High Court in the writ petition, which was dismissed by 
the impugned order. 
4. Mr. K.K. Venugopal, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf 
of the appellant, argued that there was categorical opinion of the Finance 
Department that the evidence laid before it was not sufficient to grant 
sanction for prosecution. It is pointed out that there was difference of 
opinion between Finance Ministry and the CVe. Not only this, even 
DOPT opined that warning to the officer could be sufficient. It is further 
submitted that the earlier competent authority (Finance Minister, 
Government of India) had referred the matter back to the eve, as 
such, the sanction for prosecution stood declined, and grant of the sanction
VIVEK BATRA v. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS 
181 
[PRAFULLA C. PANT, J.] 
by the successor Finance Minister cannot be said to be a valid sanction 
A 
for prosecution. It is further argued that the Rules of Business are not 
followed, as such, it cannot be said that the sanction was accorded by 
the competent authority. In support of his argument learned senior counsel 
placed reliance on Nazir Ahmad v. Ki11g-Emperor1, and argued that 
where a power is given to do a certain thing in a certain way, the thing 
B 
must be done in that way or not at all. 
5. We have considered the submissions oflearned senior counsel, 
and perused the record. 
6. Before further discussion, we thing it just and proper to quote 
relevant part of Government oflndia (Allocation of Business) Rules, 
C 
1961. Sub-rules (3) and (4) ofRule 3 of the Rules read as under: -
"(3) Where sanction for the prosecution of any person for 
any offence is required to be accorded -
a) lfhe is a Government servant, by the Department which 
is the Cadre Controlling authority for the service of which 
he is a member, and in any other case, by the Department 
in which he was working at the time of commission of the 
alleged offence; 
b) If he is a public servant other than a Government servant, 
appointed by the Central Government, by the Department 
administratively concerned with the organization in which 
he was working at the time of commission of the alleged 
offence; and 
c) In any other case, by the Department which
administers 
the Act under which the alleged offence is committed; , 
Provided that where, for offences alleged to have been 
committed, sanction is required under more than one Act, it 
shall be competent for the Department which administers 
any of such Acts to accord sanction under all such Acts. 
( 4) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-rule (3), the 
President may, by general or special order, direct that in 
I AIR 1936 PC 253 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H
182 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2016] 8 S.C.R. 
A 
any case or class of case, the sanction shall be by the 
Department of Personnel and Training." 
7. There is no dispute that for an IRS officer Cadre Controlling 
Authority is the Finance Minister of the Government of India. In 
Bac/1hittar Singh v. The State of Punja//, Constitution Bench of this 
B 
Court has held that the business of the State is a complicated one and 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
has necessarily to be conducted through the agency of large number of 
officials and authorities. 
8. In Jasbir Singh Cltlwbra and others v. State of Punjab and 
otlzers3, this Cou1t held as under: -
"35. It must always be remembered that in a democratic 
polity like ours, the functions of the Government are carried 
out by different individuals at different levels. The issues 
and policy matters which are required to be decided by the 
Government are dealt with by several functionaries some 
of whom may record notings on the files favouring a 
paiticular person or group of persons. Someone may suggest 
a pa1ticular line of action, which may not be conducive to 
pub! ic interest and others may suggest adoption ofa different 
mode in larger public interest. However, the final decision 
is required to be taken by the designated authority keeping 
in view the larger public interest. The notings recorded in 
the files cannot be made basis for recording a finding that 
the ultimate decision taken by the Government is tainted by 
mala fides 
or 
is
influenced 
by extraneous 
considerations ...... " 
9. In Sethi Auto Service Station and another v. Delhi 
Development Authority and others4, this Court observed as under: -
"14. It is trite to state that notings in a depa1tmental file do 
not have the sanction of law to be an effective order. A 
noting by an officer is an expression of his viewpoint on the 
subject. It is no more than an opinion by an officer for 
internal use and consideration of the other officials of the 
department and for the benefit of the final decision-making 
authority. Needless to add that internal notings are not meant 
'(1962] Supp. 3 SCR 713 
' (201 o J -1 sec 192 
't2009J 1 sec 1so
YIVEK BATRA v. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS 
183 
[PRAFULLA C. PANT, J.] 
for outside exposure. Notings in the file culminate into an 
A 
executable order, affecting the rights of the parties. only 
when it reaches the final decision-making authority in the 
department, gets his approval and the final order is 
communicated to the person concerned." 
10. In view of the law laid down by this Court, as above, we are 
of the opinion that the sanction cannot be held invalid only for the reason 
that in the administrative notings different authorities have opined 
differently before the competent authority took the decision in the matter. 
B 
It is not a case where the Finance Minister was not the competent 
authority to grant the sanction. What is required under Section 19 of the c 
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 is that for taking the cognizance of 
an offence, punishable under Sections 7, 10, 11, 13 and 15 of the Act 
committed by the public servant, is necessary by the Central Government 
or the State Government, as the case may be, and in the case ofa public 
servant, who is neither employed in connection with affairs of the Union 
or the State, from the authority competent to remove him. Sub-section 
(2) of Section 19 of the Act provides that where for any reason 
whatsoever any doubt arises as to whether the previous sanction, as 
required under sub-section (I) should be given by the Central Government 
or the State Government or any authority, such sanction shall be
given 
by that Government or authority which could have been competent to 
remove the public servant from his office at the time when the offence 
was alleged to have been committed. Sub-section (3) of Section 19 of 
the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 provides as under: -
"(3) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of 
Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2of1974), -
(a) no finding, sentence or order passed by a special Judge 
shall be reversed or altered by a court in appeal, confirmation 
or revision on the ground of the absence of, or any error, 
omission or irregularity in, the sanction required under sub-
section ( 1 ), unless in the opinion of that court, a failure of 
justice has in fact been occasioned thereby; 
(b) no court shall' stay the proceedings under this Act on 
the ground of any error, omission or irregularity in the 
sanction granted by the authority, unless it is satisfied that 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H
184 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2016] 8 S.C.R. 
A 
such error, omission or irregularity has resulted in a failure 
of justice; 
( c) no court shall stay the proceedings under th is Act on 
any other ground and no court shall exercise the powers of 
B 
revision in relation to any interlocutory order passed in any 
inquiry, trial, appeal or other proceedings." 
11. Having gone through the copy of note-sheets relating to 
sanction in question placed before us as part of rejoinder affidavit, it is 
evident that there had been proper application of mind on the part of the 
C 
competent authority before the sanction was accorded. Our perusal of 
the said record does not indicate that any decision was taken by the 
competent authority, at any point oftime, not to grant sanction so as to 
give the decision to grant sanction the colour of a review of any such 
earlier order, as has been contended before us. The opinion of CVC, 
which was reaffinned and ultimately prevailed in according the sanction, 
D 
cannot be said to be irrelevant for the reason that clause (g) of Section 
8 of the Central Vigilance Commission Act, 2003 provides that it is one 
of the functions of the CVC to tender advice to the Central Government 
on such matters as may be referred to it by the Government. 
E 
F 
12. For the reasons, as discussed above, we find no reason to 
interfere with the impugned order passed by the High Court dismissing 
the writ petition. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. The interim
order dated 25.11.2014, passed by this Comt, is hereby vacated. The 
trial court is directed to conclude the trial expeditiously. However, we 
clarify that we have not given any opinion as to the merits of the case. 
There shall be no order as to costs. 
Ankit Gyan 
Appeal dismissed.