Court says sanction once validly granted cannot be withdrawn on same material after cognizance; accused may raise disproportionate-assets defence at trial.
The Andhra Pradesh High Court has dismissed a writ petition filed by retired Executive Engineer Metta Appana, upholding the State Government’s decision to cancel an earlier order that had withdrawn sanction for his prosecution in a disproportionate assets case.
Justice Balaji Medamalli held that once a valid sanction for prosecution has been granted, a charge sheet has been filed and the criminal court has taken cognizance, the Government cannot withdraw the sanction merely on the same material and without any fresh evidence. The Court said the question whether the alleged disproportionate assets were within the permissible 20% variation is a factual issue that must be decided by the trial court and not in writ proceedings.
The case arose from FIR No.14 of 2010 registered by the Anti-Corruption Bureau against the petitioner under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The ACB alleged that he possessed assets disproportionate to his known sources of income. After investigation, a charge sheet was filed and the case was taken on file as C.C. No.15 of 2014 before the Special Judge for ACB Cases, Visakhapatnam. Sanction for prosecution was initially granted by the Government in 2014.
In 2024, after representations by the petitioner, the Government withdrew the prosecution sanction through G.O.Ms. No.63 dated 16.05.2024, apparently on the view that the assets fell within permissible limits. However, following a fresh communication from the ACB Director General, the Government cancelled that withdrawal by issuing G.O.Rt. No.763 dated 03.10.2024 and restored the earlier sanction. This order was challenged in the present writ petition.
The petitioner argued that the Government had no power to review its earlier withdrawal order without fresh material. He relied on Supreme Court rulings including State of Punjab v. Mohd. Iqbal Bhatti and State of H.P. v. Nishant Sareen, contending that a mere change of opinion on the same material is impermissible.
The State and the ACB, however, defended the impugned order, stating that the earlier withdrawal of sanction had been made without proper legal basis and that once prosecution had already been launched and cognizance taken, the matter had entered the criminal court’s domain. They maintained that the petitioner could raise all factual defences, including the 20% calculation issue, during trial.
Accepting the State’s stand, the Court observed that there was no fresh material to justify withdrawal of the prosecution sanction in the first place, and that the Government was justified in restoring the earlier sanction. The Court emphasized that the protection under Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act is meant to prevent vexatious prosecution, not to terminate proceedings already lawfully commenced on the same facts.
Accordingly, the writ petition was dismissed, and the Court held that the prosecution against the petitioner may proceed in accordance with law.
Bottom Line :
Prevention of Corruption Act - Sanction for prosecution once validly granted and criminal Court has taken cognizance cannot be withdrawn on the same material in absence of any fresh material - Question whether disproportionate assets are within permissible limit is matter for trial before competent criminal Court.
Statutory provision(s): Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 Section 19, Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 Section 13(2), Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 Section 13(1)(e), Constitution of India Article 226
Metta Appana v. State of Andhra Pradesh, (Andhra Pradesh) : Law Finder Doc id # 2987076
