S. 19 PC Act | Irregularity In Sanction Order No Ground For Acquittal Unless Failure Of Justice Is Shown : Supreme Court

The Supreme Court clarified that an irregularity in obtaining sanction to prosecute a public servant under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 ("Act"), does not justify an acquittal unless it causes prejudice to the accused.

A bench comprising Justices PS Narasimha and Manoj Misra was hearing a criminal appeal by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) challenging the Punjab & Haryana High Court's decision. The High Court had overturned the conviction of a public servant, citing procedural lapses by the CBI, including their failure to examine the official who granted the sanction for prosecution.

The appellant-CBI contended that despite noting that (the prosecution) had proved the demand and acceptance of a bribe by the public servant and the defence failed to rebut the presumption under Section 20 of the Act, the High Court had overturned the conviction without determining 'whether an irregularity in sanction caused the failure of injustice to the public servant'.

Setting aside the High Court's decision, the judgment penned by Justice Narasimha took note of Section 19(3)(a) of the Act which says that no finding, sentence, or order by a Special Judge shall be reversed by a court of appeal on the ground of absence, error, omission or irregularity in the sanction.

The Court added that under Section 19(4) such a restraint against reversal or alteration is always subject to the opinion of the court that failure of justice has been occasioned thereby.

As explained in the case of CBI vs. Ashok Kumar Aggarwal (2014) a plea of 'failure of justice' would not be entertained unless it is shown by the accused that the findings on conviction had caused some disability or detriment in the protections available to him under the Indian criminal jurisprudence.

“Really speaking, nothing remains for us to consider if absence, omission, error or irregularity of the sanction order has occasioned or resulted in failure of justice as the High Court came to the conclusion that findings of fact of the Trial Court, are based on evidence. The High Court also held that, 'the prosecution proved the demand and acceptance. The defence failed to rebut the prosecution evidence. Presumption arises under Section 20 of the Act regarding acceptance of money.”, the court observed.

Since the High Court had not delved into an aspect of determining whether an irregularity in sanction caused failure of injustice to the public servant, thus, the Court deemed it appropriate to remand the matter back to the High Court for considering the question of legality of the order of sanction under Section 19 of the Act to consider if the irregularity, if any, has occasioned or resulted in a failure of justice.

“For the reasons stated above, we allow the appeal and set aside the judgment and order dated 10.05.2017 in CRA-S-No. 1192-SB of 2002 by the High Court to the extent that it set aside the sanction and the consequent acquittal. While we confirm the other findings, we remand the matter to the High Court for considering the question of legality of the order of sanction under Section 19 of the Act to consider if the irregularity, if any, has occasioned or resulted in a failure of justice.”, the Court held.

Appearance:

Ms. Rukhmini Bobde, Adv. for CBI 

Mr. Sangram S. Saron, Adv. for the respondent-Public servant

Case Title: CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION VS. JAGAT RAM, CRIMINAL APPEAL NO(S). 4964 OF 2024

Citation : 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 974
Click here to read/download the judgment