Recently the Kerala High Court in the case of K.Sasi v. State of Kerala rep. by Chief Secretary to the Govt & Ors. held that merely because there is a typographical error in showing the designation of the person accused in the sanction order to prosecute a such person under Section 19(1)(b) of the Prevention of Corruption Act (P.C. Act), it cannot be said that the sanction order is bad.
The petitioner herein, who had been working as Inspector of Factories and Boilers at Thrissur, during the period from January 1, 2004, to February 28, 2015, allegedly amassed wealth to the tune of Rs.82,81,561/- which was disproportionate to his known source of income. He was accordingly charged with offences punishable under Sections 13 (2) r/w 13(1) of the P.C. Act. The Additional Secretary to the Government, Labour and Skills Department (4th respondent), had issued a sanction order to prosecute the petitioner invoking Section 19(1)(b) of the P.C Act. The sanction order had wrongly stated the designation of the petitioner as ‘Additional Director’. On the basis of this petitioner filed a petition to invalidate the sanction.
While dismissing the petition the court held that “The question whether the sanctioning authority has applied his mind or not, is something which cannot be agitated in a writ petition. If the petitioner has got a case 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.”