IMPORTANT POINT
Before passing an order to discharge accused charge-sheeted under Prevention of Corruption Act, on a ground of error, omission or irregularity in the sanction Court must record a finding that such error or omission had resulted in failure of justice.

Headnote:Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988-Section 19-Respondent was charge-sheeted for offence u/s 7, 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of the Act-Sanction for prosecution had been accorded by Superintending Engineer of Electricity Board-Trial Court held that sanction accorded by Superintending Engineer was not sufficient to prosecute accused discharged him-High Court dismissed revision-Appeal-Neither trial Court nor High Court examined requirement of sub-section 3 relating to question regarding "failure of justice"-Mere any omission, error or irregularity in the matter of according sanction would not affect validity of proceeding unless Court recorded satisfaction that it resulted in failure of justice-Impugned order was liable to be set aside.
Held : In the instant case neither the Trial Court nor the High Court appear to have kept in view the requirements of sub-section (3) relating to question regarding "failure of justice". Merely because there is any omission, error or irregularity in the matter of according sanction that does not affect the validity of the proceeding unless the court records the satisfaction that such error, omission or irregularity has resulted in failure of justice. The same logic also applies to the appellate or revisional court. The requirement of sub-section (4) about raising the issue, at the earliest stage has not been also considered. Unfortunately the High Court by a practically non-reasoned order, confirmed the order passed by the learned trial judge. The orders are, therefore, indefensible. We set aside the said orders. It would be appropriate to require the trial Court to record findings in terms of clause (b) of sub-section (3) and sub-section (4) of Section 19. (Para 14)

JUDGMENT

Arijit Pasayat, J.-Leave granted.

2. The scope and ambit of Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (in short the Act ) falls for consideration in this appeal, State of Karnataka calls in question legality of the judgment rendered by a learned Single Judge of the Karnataka High Court. The High Court upheld the order of discharge passed by the trial Court. The respondent-accused was discharged in a criminal trial by the said order.

3. Background facts necessary for disposal of the appeal in a nutshell are as follows :

A charge-sheet was filed against the respondent (hereinafter referred to as the Accused ) for commission of offences relatable under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Act. Charges were framed by the Trial Court under the aforesaid provisions. Evidence of witnesses had also been recorded. At that stage the public prosecutor filed an application stating that in view of some earlier judgments of the High Court, question relating to validating a sanction for prosecution was to be adjudicated first. The accused had no objection to it. Undisputedly, the sanction was accorded by the Superintending Engineer of the Karnataka Electricity Board (hereinafter referred to as the Board ). The Trial Court referred to the Karnataka Electricity Board Employees (Classification, Disciplinary Control and Appeal) Regulations, 1987 (in short the Regulations ) and held that the sanction accorded by the Superintending Engineer was not sufficient to prosecute the accused. Consequently it was held that the accused was entitled to discharge for the time being for the grant of invalid sanction. However, liberty was given to the prosecution to obtain fresh sanction and to file a fresh charge sheet. The order was assailed before the Karnataka High Court on the ground that even if it is conceded that the sanction was defective, that did not entitle the accused to an order of discharge. By the impugned order the revision application filed under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short the Code ), was dismissed.

4. In support of the appeal learned counsel for the State submitted that even if it is conceded for the sake of arguments that the sanction was defective that did not entitle the accused to an order of discharge. It was required to be shown by the accused as to how any prejudice was caused or there was failure of justice. It was also pointed out that the order of the High Court is practically non-reasoned and no reason was assigned for accepting the view of the trial court.

5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent - accused submitted that the sanction was sine-qua-non for prosecution. In the absence of a valid sanction the proceedings could not be continued and therefore the trial court was right in its conclusion.

6. Section 19 is a part of Chapter 5 of the Act which deals with "Sanction For Prosecution and Other Miscellaneous Provisions". This Section has four sub-sections which read as follows :

"19. Previous sanction necessary for prosecution.-(1) No court shall take cognizance of an offence punishable under Sections 7, 10, 11, 13 and 15 alleged to have been committed by a public servant, except with the previous sanction,-

(a) in the case of a person who is employed in connection with the affairs of the Union and is not removable from his office save by or with the sanction of the Central Government, of that Government;

(b) in the case of a person who is employed in connection with the affairs of a State and is not removable from his office save by or with sanction of the State Government, of that Government;

(2) Where for any reason whatsoever any doubt arises as to whether the previous sanction as required under sub-section (1) should be given by the Central Government or the State Government or any oth

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2004 Supreme(SC) 1049

IMPORTANT POINTBefore passing an order to discharge accused charge-sheeted under Prevention of Corruption Act, on a ground of error, omission or irregularity in the sanction Court must record a finding that such error or omission had resulted in failure of justice.

Cases Referred (3)

IMPORTANT POINT
Before passing an order to discharge accused charge-sheeted under Prevention of Corruption Act, on a ground of error, omission or irregularity in the sanction Court must record a finding that such error or omission had resulted in failure of justice.