Supreme Court Quashes Prosecution and Sets Aside Sanction as Non‑Speaking in Long‑Pending Arms‑Licence Matter

A bench of Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh heard an appeal by an IAS officer challenging the Patna High Court’s refusal to quash cognizance in a two‑decade‑old criminal matter arising out of Saharsa Sadar P.S. Case No. 112 of 2005 concerning alleged irregular issuance of arms licences. The appeal tested the scope of Section 13(2A) of the Arms Act, the requirements of prior sanction under Section 197 CrPC and the impact of prolonged investigation on the right to a speedy trial under Article 21.

The Court allowed the appeal, set aside the sanction order and quashed all consequential criminal proceedings against the appellant. The Court held that the sanction granted by the State did not disclose application of mind and was “bad in law”, and that the inordinate delay in completing investigation — spanning more than a decade after permission for further probe — engaged the accused’s right to a speedy trial and independently warranted quashing of prosecution. The Court emphasised the statutory duty of the licensing authority under Section 13(2A) to call for police verification but noted that where rules prescribed no specific time, action must be taken within a reasonable period. The Court, in its reasoning, observed: The Court further observed that “calling for a police verification report is mandatory and the same is to be sent to the licensing authority within the prescribed time,” and recorded concern that the appellant “has had the cloud of a criminal investigation hanging over him for all these years.”

Background The appellant, Robert Lalchungnunga Chongthu (also R.L. Chongthu), served as District Magistrate‑cum‑Licensing Authority, Saharsa, from December 2002 to April 2005. Following a Ministry of Home Affairs direction (October 29, 2004) to streamline arms licence issuance, an inquiry identified licences issued to several unverified or allegedly fictitious persons. An FIR and subsequent investigations followed. A supplementary chargesheet in April 2006 initially found no offence against the then‑DM and recorded the complainant’s “no objection” to closure. Permission for further investigation was granted by the Chief Judicial Magistrate in June 2009 under Section 173(8) CrPC; after years of administrative and investigative activity, a chargesheet naming the appellant was filed on 31 August 2020. The State granted prosecution sanction under Section 197 CrPC on 27 April 2022; cognizance was taken on 1 June 2022. The High Court declined to quash proceedings in May 2025, prompting this appeal.

Before the Supreme Court, the appellant argued that he acted under the discretionary proviso in Section 13(2A) Arms Act, that departmental proceedings had resulted in discharge, that the sanction was non‑speaking, and that the chargesheet was filed after inordinate delay without fresh material. The State relied on alleged irregularities — licences to physically unfit or fictitious persons, swift grant of licences without adequate verification — and resisted parity‑based relief. The Supreme Court analysed the statutory scheme (Section 13(2)/(2A) Arms Act), the settled principles on sanction under Section 197 CrPC (including the requirement that sanctioning orders reflect application of mind), and the right to speedy trial as articulated in R.S. Nayak and related authorities. Finding the sanction order to be mechanistic and devoid of reasons and concluding that the long unexplained delay in investigation prejudiced the appellant’s rights, the Court quashed the sanction and all consequential criminal proceedings. The Court also issued directions noting that courts exercising control over leave to file supplementary chargesheets must exercise ongoing stewardship, that reasons for long gaps between FIR and chargesheet are indispensable, and that while strict timelines may not be feasible, investigations cannot continue endlessly without adequate justification.

Case No.: 2025 INSC 1339 Case Title: ROBERT LALCHUNGNUNGA CHONGTHU @ R L CHONGTHU v. STATE OF BIHAR Appearances: For the Petitioner(s): Counsel not specified in the judgment For the Respondent(s): Counsel not specified in the judgment