PC Act | Sanction Necessary To Summon Public Servant As Additional Accused As Per S.319 CrPC : Supreme Court

The Supreme Court has reiterated that the court cannot take cognizance of an offence committed by a public servant under the Prevention of Corruption Act in the absence of prosecution sanction.

The Court held that this condition is applicable even for summoning a public servant as an additional accused under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

The Court said that the accused cannot be summoned to face trial under Section 319 Cr.P.C. (now Section 358 of BNSS) without following the mandatory requirement of Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act (PC Act).

“It is a well settled position of law that courts cannot take cognizance against any public servant for offences committed under Sections 7,11,13 & 15 of the P.C. Act, even on an application under section 319 of the CrPC, without first following the requirements of Section 19 of the P.C Act. Here, the correct procedure should have been for the prosecution to obtain sanction under Section 19 of the P.C Act from the appropriate Government, before formally moving an application before the Court under Section 319 of CrPC.”, the bench comprising Justices Sudhanshu Dhulia and Prasanna B Varale said.

In the present case, while allowing the Section 319 (CrPC) application moved by the Public Prosecutor, the Trial Court did not consider the question of sanction. The decision of the trial court was reversed by the High Court for not following the mandatory requirement of Section 19 of the PC Act.

Before the Supreme Court, the stand of the State was that there was no need for this sanction as cognizance was taken in the Court itself under Section 319 of the CrPC.

Rejecting such contention, the Judgment authored by Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia stated that the Trial Court should have insisted on the prior sanction, which it did not therefore in the absence of the sanction, the entire procedure remained flawed.

The Court drew reference from the Judgment of Surinderjit Singh Mand v. State of Punjab, where it was held that a sanction from appropriate authority is a mandatory prerequisite even when the cognizance of offence is taken under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the public servant.

Since, the trial court didn't follow the requirements of Section 19 of the PC Act and proceeded against the public servant to take cognizance of an offence under the PC Act, the Court accordingly upheld the High Court's decision and dismissed the appeal.

Counsels For Appellant(s) Mr. Vivek Jain, D.A.G.(NP) Ms. Nupur Kumar, AOR Mr. Abhinav Jain, Adv.

Counsels For Respondent(s) Mr. R.P. Nagrath, Sr. Adv. Mr. Manuj Nagrath, Adv. Mr. Raktim Gogoi, Adv. Mr. Kartikeya Singh, AOR Mr. Shivam Sharma, Adv. Mr. S Vinod, Adv.

Case Details: THE STATE OF PUNJAB VERSUS PARTAP SINGH VERKA

Citation : 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 461

Click here to read/download the Judgment