J&K Court Rules: 'Delayed Sanction Doesn't Void Bribery Probe'

(MENAFN- Kashmir Observer) Srinagar- The High Court of Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh at Srinagar has dismissed a petition seeking quashing of an FIR registered by the Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB) against four Motor Vehicles Department officials posted at the ARTO Office, Anantnag, in a corruption case.

Justice Sanjay Dhar, in a detailed 24-page judgment, held that while the investigating agency initially proceeded in contravention of Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act, the subsequent compliance with the statutory requirement rendered the investigation legally sustainable.

The petitioners-Asif Amin Chalkoo and others-had challenged FIR No. 04/2021 registered under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act read with Section 120-B of the IPC. They contended that the investigation was conducted without obtaining prior sanction as required under Section 17A, thereby vitiating the entire proceedings.

The FIR emanated from a joint surprise check conducted by the ACB South Kashmir, which prima facie revealed a nexus between touts and ARTO officials. The investigation found coded pencil markings on driving license applications linked to known touts identified by initials such as“A.F”,“A.K”, and“M.B”. It was alleged that these touts, in connivance with ARTO officials, facilitated issuance of licenses, vehicle registrations, and fitness certificates in exchange for bribes.

Searches were carried out at the residences of the accused officials and touts, leading to the seizure of documents including blank fitness books, permit forms, insurance papers, and registration certificates. Further, call detail records reportedly established contact between the touts and officials, particularly on days of driving tests. Bank accounts of the accused and their family members were also placed under scrutiny.

Read Also Court Pulls Up J&K Police Officer For Mocking SC Judgment J&K HC Upholds Scrapping Of Budgam Class IV Selection

While the petitioners argued that they were public servants discharging official duties and thus entitled to prior sanction under Section 17A before initiation of investigation, the prosecution countered that the FIR initially named no individuals. It was only upon identification of their roles during the course of the investigation that sanction was obtained from the General Administration Department on November 11, 2022.

Justice Dhar observed that although steps such as obtaining search warrants between August 2, 2021 and the date of sanction were technically in breach of Section 17A, such procedural lapses were not fatal to the investigation. Relying on precedents including Yashwant Sinha v. CBI and N. Chandrababu Naidu v. State of Andhra Pradesh, the Court held that a delayed sanction does not automatically vitiate an entire investigation.

“Merely because the respondent has undertaken investigation of the impugned FIR in violation of the mandate under Section 17A... cannot form a ground to quash the FIR or the entire investigation,” the Court held.

The Court further noted that the petitioners failed to demonstrate any prejudice or miscarriage of justice as a result of the delay in obtaining sanction. It also rejected the argument that the investigation must be halted because a prior investigating officer had opined against prosecution, clarifying that no final report had been filed, and the agency was well within its rights to reassess and proceed with the probe.

In conclusion, the Court dismissed the petition and vacated the interim stay on the investigation, allowing the ACB to proceed in accordance with law.

MENAFN10072025000215011059ID1109786875