Bombay HC reserves order on Rana Kapoor's plea raising issue of improper sanction
India Today
Yes Bank founder Rana Kapoor had filed a plea against the alleged improper sanction obtained by the CBI to prosecute him under the Prevention of Corruption Act.
Justice PD Naik of the Bombay High Court has reserved his order in the plea filed by Yes Bank founder Rana Kapoor against the alleged improper sanction obtained by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) to prosecute him under the Prevention of Corruption Act (PCA).
Earlier, Rana Kapoor had moved the lower court seeking to restrict the investigating agency from proceeding in the matter due to non-compliance with the sanction mandate under Section 17A of the PCA to obtain prior approval. However, the lower court rejected it, after which he moved the high court. Rana prayed for a declaration that the investigation against him, including his custody, was illegal and void.
Advocate Vijay Aggarwal, appearing for Rana, argued that a prior sanction was mandatory to prosecute him. Aggarwal submitted that the FIR against Rana was registered on March 12, 2020, and the sanction to prosecute was obtained by the CBI on March 16, 2020, which made the subsequent sanction bad in law.
He added that the alleged sanction issued by managing director Prashant Kumar was cryptic, prospective and was without application of mind. Aggarwal stressed that there had been no board resolution which authorised Kumar to take decisions unilaterally, thus few procedures were not followed for obtaining the sanction.
However, advocate Hiten Venegaokar appearing for the CBI argued that permission in the case had been properly granted, which was considered by the lower court while rejecting Rana's plea. Venegaonkar argued that the offence of criminal misconduct under Section 13(1)(D) of the PCA was revealed after registration of complaint and accordingly, approval was sought from the competent authority.
He stressed that the argument about taking permission before adding Section 13(1)(D) is untenable and liable to be rejected.
Venegaonkar argued that the CBI had obtained sanction under Section 17A against Rana, which was granted by the administrator of Yes Bank Ltd with the approval of the board of directors. Yes Bank, being a public company, had a board of directors that was competent authority to grant sanction as per provisions of the Companies Act.
