IMPORTANT POINT
Valid prior sanction for prosecution is mandatory u/s 19(1) of the PC Act, 1988. In absence of such sanction no court can take cognizance.
The cognizance taken in absence of a valid prior sanction would be without jurisdiction, null and void and non-est.
Validity of a sanction order can be challenged at any stage, even before the Supreme Court.

Judgment

T.S. Thakur, J.

1. This appeal arises out of a judgment and order dated 9th February, 2012 passed by the High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore whereby the High Court has, while reversing an order of acquittal passed by the Trial Court, convicted the appellant under Sections 7 and 13 read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for a period of six months under Section 7 and a period of one year under Section 13 besides fine and sentence of imprisonment in default of payment of the same. The facts giving rise to the filing of the appeal may be summarised as under:-

2. The appellant was working as a Bill Collector in Sabbanakruppe Grama Panchayath, in S.R. Patna Taluk of the State of Karnataka. The prosecution case is that the complainant who was examined at the trial as PW-1, appeared before the Lokayukta Police to allege that the appellant had demanded a bribe of Rs.500/-from him for issue of a copy of a certain resolution dated 13th March, 1998 passed by the Sabbanakruppe Grama Panchayath. Since the complainant was unwilling to pay the bribe amount, he prayed for action against the appellant. The Lokayukta Police appears to have secured panch witnesses, prepared an entrustment memo and handed over the intended bribe amount to the complainant after applying phenolphthalein powder to the currency notes for being paid to the appellant upon demand. The prosecution case is that the bribe amount was demanded by the appellant and paid to him by the complainant whereupon the raiding party on a signal given by the complainant arrived at the spot and recovered the said amount from his possession. The appellant’s hands were got washed in sodium carbonate solution which turned pink, clearly suggesting that the bribe money had been handled by the appellant. On completion of the investigation, the police filed charge-sheet before the jurisdictional court where the prosecution examined as many as 5 witnesses in support of its case. The appellant did not, however, adduce any evidence in his defence. The Trial Court eventually came to the conclusion that the prosecution had failed to prove the charges framed against the appellant and accordingly acquitted him of the same. The Trial Court held that the prosecution had failed to prove that the appellant had any role in the passing of the resolution by the members of the Panchayat, a copy whereof was demanded by the complainant. The Trial Court further held that there was no material to suggest that the Sabbanakruppe Grama Panchayat had joined hands with the appellant in converting the road running in front of the complainant’s house into sites for allotment to third parties. The Trial Court found that the property purchased by the complainant did not actually show a road on the northern side of the said property. The Trial Court, on those findings, concluded that the complainant’s accusation about the appellant demanding bribe from him was unreliable and unworthy of credit. Relying upon the decision of this Court in Kaliram vs. State of Himachal Pradesh (AIR 1973 SC 2773), the Trial Court held that since two views were possible on the evidence adduced in the case, one pointing to the guilt of the appellant and the other to his innocence, the view that was favourable to the appellant had to be accepted. The Trial Court further held that the sanction for prosecution of the appellant had not been granted by the competent authority and was, therefore, not in accordance with Section 19 of the P.C. Act. Relying upon the deposition of PW-4 examined at the trial, the Trial Court held that the Chief Officer, Zilla Panchayat was the only competent authority to grant sanction for prosecution in terms of Section 113 of the Panchayat Raj Act. The prosecution case against the appellant was on those findings rejected by the Trial Court and the appellant acquitted.

3. Aggrieved by the order of acquittal passed by the Trial Court, the State prefe