S.19(3) Prevention Of Corruption Act | Order Sanctioning Criminal Prosecution Can Be Challenged At Any Stage Of Trial: Allahabad High Court

The Allahabad High Court has held that order sanctioning criminal prosecution of a government employee under Section 19 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 can be challenged at any stage in the Trial proceedings and the bar placed under Section 19(3) on superior courts overturning the findings of the Special Judge shall not apply in such cases.

Section 19(3) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 is a non-obstante clause which provides the circumstances under which a finding, sentence or order of a Special Judge under the Act can be overturned or altered in appeal, revision, etc. by a superior court. Section 19(3)(b) provides that proceedings under the Act cannot be stayed on the ground of any error, omission or irregularity in the sanction granted by the authority, unless the Court is satisfied that such error, omission or irregularity has resulted in a failure of justice.

Justice Rajeev Misra held that “where the sanction order is invalid and the said issue has been raised during the pendency of trial then in that eventuality the prohibition contained in Sub-Section (3) of Section 19 of PC Act restraining the Superior Courts from interference with an order passed by the Court in proceedings under the Prevention of Corruption Act, does not come into play.”

Factual Background

2 FIRs were registered against General Manager BSNL Bulandshahar and DGM BSNL Bulandshahar under Section 120 IPC. In the Police Report before the Special Court, CBI, Ghaziabad, the accused were charge sheeted under sections 7 and 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Sanction of criminal prosecution of accused was provided by the Director (HR), BSNL, New Delhi as the accused were both public servants.

Accused filed an application for discharge under Section 227 CrPC, however, the same was rejected. The accused challenged the order before the High Court, however, the High Court dismissed the same. Subsequently, the trial proceeded.

The Director (HR) BSNL, New Delhi who gave the sanction was examined and cross-examined. Since her answers were not found satisfactory regarding exercise of jurisdiction in sanctioning criminal prosecution, an objection was filed by the applicant before the Trial Court stating that the Director had no jurisdiction to sanction the criminal prosecution.

Though CBI field counter objection stating that Director is the competent authority to sanction criminal prosecution against the accused, the Court observed that no specific provision was cited to such authority. The Trial Court rejected the objections filed by the accused. Accordingly, the applicant approached the High Court by filing an application under Section 482 of CrPC.

High Court Verdict

Relying on BSNL, Conduct, Discipline and Appeal Rules, 2006, the Court held that the Chief Managing Director (BSNL), New Delhi is the competent authority to sanction criminal prosecution against the applicant. It was held that the Director (HR) BSNL, New Delhi had no jurisdiction to issue the sanction and had acted in excess of her jurisdiction.

The Court observed that even if a competent authority issued the sanctioned order for criminal prosecution, the same was amenable to challenge. It was further held that even though sanction was granted in 2017, raising objections in 2023 was not barred by laches as the issue of jurisdiction can be raised at any stage.

“Since the sanction order passed qua the criminal prosecution of applicant and other co-accused is manifestly without jurisdiction, therefore, the prosecution of applicant and other co-accused on the basis of an illegal sanction order cannot be allowed to be sustained on the ground of laches or the ground that a period of six years has rolled by since the date of the sanction order.”

The Court observed that in Nanjappa v. State of Karnataka, the Supreme Court held that Suction 19(3) does not bar a Special Judge from discharging the accuse where he is of the opinion that the sanction order under Section 19(1) of the Prevention of Corruption Act was invalid. It was held that the Special Judge, at any stage of the proceedings can pass an order regarding maintainability of the prosecution for want of a valid sanctioning order.

“The rationale underlying the provision obviously is that if the trial has proceeded to conclusion and resulted in a finding or sentence, the same should not be lightly interfered with by the appellate or the revisional court simply because there was some omission, error or irregularity in the order sanctioning prosecution under Section 19(1). Failure of justice is, what the appellate or revisional Court would in such cases look for. And while examining whether any such failure had indeed taken place, the Court concerned would also keep in mind whether the objection touching the error, omission or irregularity in the sanction could or should have been raised at an earlier stage of the proceedings meaning thereby whether the same could and should have been raised at the trial stage instead of being urged in appeal or revision,” held the Apex Court.

Accordingly, it was held that since trial had commenced on invalid sanction, the order of the Trial Court with respect to the applicant was set aside and the Trial Court was ordered to discharge the applicant.

Case Title: Rajendra Singh Verma v. C.B.I 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 539 [APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 38496 of 2023]

Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 539

Counsel for Applicant: Anoop Trivedi, Senior Advocate assisted by Abhinav Gaur, Vibhu Rai

Counsel for Opposite Party: Sanjay Kumar Yadav

Click Here To Read/Download Order