No Concept Of 'Deemed Sanction' Under Section 197 CrPC : Supreme Court

While quashing a case against the public servant due to lack of prior sanction, the Supreme Court on Tuesday (February 25) observed that the failure of the sanctioning authority to provide sanction within the stipulated time would not make the sanction a 'deemed sanction' because such a concept doesn't exist under Section 197 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

"Section 197 of CrPC does not envisage a concept of deemed sanction," the bench comprising Justice BV Nagarathna and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma observed.

The complainant and prosecution relied on the cases of Vineet Narain vs. Union of India, AIR 1998 SC 889, and Subramanian Swamy vs. Manmohan Singh, (2012) 3 SCC 64 contending that if the sanction was not granted within the stipulated time, it should be deemed to have been granted.

However, rejecting such an argument the Court noted that both the judgments cited by the respondents did not support the concept of deemed sanction under Section 197.

Distinguishing the Vineet Narain's case, the Court observed:

"However, a perusal of the said judgment reveals that it did not deal with Section 197 CrPC and rather it dealt with the investigation powers and procedures of Central Bureau of Investigation and Central Vigilance Commission. While it did mention that the time limits for grant of sanction for prosecution must be strictly adhered to, there is no observation to the effect that lack of grant of sanction for prosecution within the time limit would amount to deemed sanction for prosecution."

Further, the Court clarified Subramanian Swamy's case, stating that the separate but concurring judgment penned by Justice GS Singhvi provided certain guidelines for Parliament's consideration. One of these guidelines stated that if no decision on sanction is made by the end of the extended time limit, it shall be deemed granted. Consequently, the prosecuting agency or the private complainant may proceed to file the chargesheet or complaint in court and initiate prosecution within fifteen days of the time limit's expiry.

However, upon noting that such a proposition was not incorporated under the Cr.P.C., the Court said the concept of deemed sanction cannot be read as a mandate.

“However, such a proposition has not yet been statutorily incorporated by the Parliament and in such a scenario, this Court cannot read such a mandate into the statute when it does not exist.”, the court said.

Unlike the old Cr.P.C., the new criminal law i.e., Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (“BNSS”) provides for the concept of deemed sanction. The new procedural law under proviso second to Section 218 (1) makes a provision of deemed sanction i.e., if a sanction is not received to prosecute the public servant within 120 days, the sanction would be considered as deemed sanction to prosecute the public servant. The proviso reads as: -

“Provided further that such Government shall take a decision within a period of one hundred and twenty days from the date of the receipt of the request for sanction and in case it fails to do so, the sanction shall be deemed to have been accorded by such Government.”

Background

The aforesaid clarification regarding the concept of deemed sanction was made by the bench of Justices BV Nagarathna and Satish Chandra Sharma while deciding an appeal filed by the public servant who was proceeded with charges without there being prior sanction for prosecution.

Since the sanctioning authority had denied the sanction albeit beyond the stipulated time due to the delayed receipt of the sanction request the respondents argued that, as the sanction was not granted within the prescribed period, it should be deemed to have been granted.

Rejecting such an approach, the Court noted that the appellant cannot be prosecuted in absence of a valid sanction.

“Therefore, we are of the opinion that the learned Magistrate was not right in taking cognizance of the offence against the appellant herein without there being a sanction for prosecution granted by the competent authority. Further, the High Court erred in not considering the fact that the sanction for prosecution was not granted by the competent authority under Section 197 of the CrPC and eventually the sanction was expressly denied by the competent authority with respect to the allegations against the appellant. The necessary sanction not having been granted has vitiated the very initiation of the criminal proceeding against the appellant herein. Consequently, the chargesheet, the summoning order and the consequent steps, if any, taken by the trial court pursuant to the same are liable to be quashed qua the appellant herein and are thus quashed.”, the court held.

Case Title: SUNEETI TOTEJA VERSUS STATE OF U.P. & ANOTHER

Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 249

Click here to read/download the judgment

Appearance:

For Petitioner(s) Ms. Rebecca John, Sr. Adv. Ms. Meenakshi Kalra, AOR Ms. Shobhana Takiar, Adv. Mr. S N Kalra, Adv. Ms. Gade Meghana, Adv. Ms. Anjali Chaudhary, Adv.

For Respondent(s) Mr. Shaurya Sahay, AOR Mr. Aditya Kumar, Adv. Mr. Ruchil Ra, Adv. Mr. vikas Bansal, Adv. Mr. Prashant Bhushan, AOR Ms. Suroor Mandar, Adv.