S.19 Prevention Of Corruption Act | 'Failure Of Justice' Is A Facile Expression, Courts Must Be Circumspect While Determining It: Delhi High Court

In reference to Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, which provides that a judicial order may be interfered with in case of irregularity in grant of sanction coupled with failure of justice, the Delhi High Court has cautioned,

"The criminal Court, particularly the superior Court, should make a close examination to ascertain whether there was really a failure of justice or it is only a camouflage."

Justice Chandra Dhari Singh dismissed a plea filed by a public servant named as an accused in a CBI case registered under sec. 13(2) read with sec. 13(1)(d) and 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

The Trial Court vide order dated 11th April 2008 had framed charges against the petitioner for disproportionate assets of Rs.9,48,19,816. Charges were also framed under sec. 109 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 against the other persons named as accused.

The petitioner had approached the High Court challenging the order dated 7th August 2014 passed by the Trial Court. Vide the said order, the Court dismissed an application filed by the petitioner praying for dropping of the criminal proceedings pending against him on the ground that since in case the sanction as required under sec. 19 of the PC Act was not obtained from the competent authority.

Thus, the question before the Court was whether a criminal prosecution ought to be interfered with by the High Courts at the instance of the accused who seeks midcourse relief from the criminal charges levelled against him on grounds of defects or omissions or errors in the order granting sanction to prosecute including errors of jurisdiction to grant such sanction.

"The object behind the requirement of grant of sanction to prosecute a public servant need not detain the Court to proceed against an officer, save and except to reiterate that the provisions in this regard, either under the Cr.P.C. or the PC Act, are designed as a check on frivolous, mischievous and unscrupulous attempts to prosecute an honest public servant for acts arising out of due discharge of his duty and also to enable him to efficiently perform the wide range of duties casted upon him by virtue of his office," the Court observed.

It further added that the test in such cases, therefore, always is whether the act complained of has a reasonable connection with the discharge of official duties by the government or the public servant.

"If such connection exists and the discharge or exercise of the governmental function is prima facie founded on the bona fide judgment of the public servant, the requirement of sanction will be insisted upon so as to act as a filter to keep at bay any motivated, ill-founded and frivolous prosecution against the public servant," the Court observed.

Perusing sec. 19 of the PC Act, the Court was of the view that the phrase "failure of justice" is "too pliable or facile an expression, which could be fitted in any situation of a case."

"The expression "failure of justice" would appear, sometimes, as an etymological chameleon as has been observed by Lord Diplock in Town Investments Ltd. v. Deptt of Environment, (1977) 1 All ER 813. The criminal Court, particularly the superior Court, should make a close examination to ascertain whether there was really a failure of justice or it is only a camouflage," the Court said.

It was further observed that the Trial Court, while examining the application filed by the petitioner for dropping of the criminal proceedings pending against him, had taken a correct view that the question of validity of sanction was also linked with the question whether invalid sanction had resulted in the failure of justice, the issue cannot be gone into during the trial unless the evidence is completely recorded.

"Having perused the aforesaid relevant part of the impugned order under challenge as well as the provisions and law discussed in foregoing paragraphs, I do not find any illegality or error in the impugned order. I do not find any cogent reason for invoking of the extraordinary jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. for the purpose of quashing the entire criminal proceedings against the petitioner," the Court concluded.

Accordingly, the plea was dismissed.

Case Title: DEVENDER GUPTA v. CBI

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 574

Click Here To Read Order