- Home
- /
- Supreme court
- /
- PC Act | Sanction Granted After...
PC Act | Sanction Granted After Court Passed Cognizance Order Not Invalid : Supreme Court
Gyanvi Khanna
29 July 2024 7:12 PM IST
The Supreme Court (recently on July 22) held that a sanction under Section 19(1) of the Prevention of Corruption Act won't be rendered invalid merely because it was granted after the trial court had taken cognizance of the chargesheet.The Court clarified that the ratio of its decision passed in Nanjappa v. State of Karnataka did not invalidate the sanction granted under Section 19(1) of...
The Supreme Court (recently on July 22) held that a sanction under Section 19(1) of the Prevention of Corruption Act won't be rendered invalid merely because it was granted after the trial court had taken cognizance of the chargesheet.
The Court clarified that the ratio of its decision passed in Nanjappa v. State of Karnataka did not invalidate the sanction granted under Section 19(1) of the Prevention of Corruption Act after passing of the cognizance order.
To elaborate, the Top Court in this aforementioned decision had held that a trial against a public servant with an invalid sanction is null and void.
The Bench of Justices Sanjiv Khanna and Sanjay Kumar were dealing with a criminal appeal filed against the Jharkhand High Court, upholding the order of cognizance passed in the absence of sanction by the competent authority.
Though the sanction was obtained, it was only after the passing of the cognizance order. Against this background, the appellant had pleaded that the sanction should be treated as void in view of Nanjappa's decision.
However, this argument did not find favour with the Bench, and it clarified:
“We are not inclined to accept the said submission. The ratio of the said decision is to the effect that the trial Court could not have taken cognizance in view of the bar contained in Section 19(1) of the 1988 Act. We do not think that the ratio of the aforesaid decision extends to invalidating the sanction granted, after the order taking cognizance was passed.”
The Court also observed that the Trial Court was not correct in law in taking cognizance in the absence of the sanction. Further, it said that the CBI could file this sanction before the concerned Court. After examining the same, the Court may take cognizance and proceed against the appellant if required.
In view of this, the present appeal was allowed.
It may be noted that the High Court, in the impugned judgment, had noted that the order of cognizance was of 2020, i.e. after the 2018 amendment (through which Section 19 (1) was brought) came into force. Thus, it opined that the appellant was entitled to the protective umbrella of sanction under Section 19 (Amended).
Notwithstanding, the High Court was of the view that the absence of sanction was a procedural irregularity which was cured by a grant of subsequent sanction.
“Therefore, mere error, omission or irregularity in sanction is (sic not) considered fatal unless it has resulted in failure of justice or has occasioned thereby. Section 19(1) is a matter of procedure and does not go to the root of jurisdiction as observed in para 95 of Narasimha Rao case [(1998) 4 SCC 626 : 1998 SCC (Cri) 1108].,” the High Court observed.
Case Details: SHIVENDRA NATH VERMA v. UNION OF INDIA., arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 12708/2023)
Citation : 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 518
