1. Appeal against High Court order quashing a Sanction Order and proceedings under Sections 7 and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. (Para 2 )
Back
Next 
2025 Supreme(SC) 59
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
BELA M. TRIVEDI, PRASANNA B. VARALE, JJ.
The State of Punjab – Appellant
Versus
Hari Kesh – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 104 of 2025 (Arising out of SLP(Criminal) No.9114/2019)
Decided On : 07-01-2025
Important Points
IMPORTANT POINT
Quashing of Sanction Order – Whether Sanction has been granted by competent authority or not, would be a matter of evidence – High Court should not have quashed Sanction Order and consequent proceedings, unless it was satisfied that failure of justice had occurred by such error or irregularity or invalidity.
Quashing of Sanction Order – Whether Sanction has been granted by competent authority or not, would be a matter of evidence – High Court should not have quashed Sanction Order and consequent proceedings, unless it was satisfied that failure of justice had occurred by such error or irregularity or invalidity.
Subject
Criminal Law - Prevention of Corruption
Act Referred
Headnote
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 – Sections 7 and 13(2) read with Section 19 – Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 482 [Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 – Section 528] – Quashing of Sanction Order – Petition for quashing of Sanction Order was filed by respondent after trial court framed charge and commenced trial – Whether Sanction has been granted by competent authority or not, would be a matter of evidence – High Court should not have quashed Sanction Order and consequent proceedings, unless it was satisfied that failure of justice had occurred by such error or irregularity or invalidity – There is not a whisper in impugned order about any failure of justice having occurred on account of impugned Sanction Order – High Court also should not have entertained petition for quashing Sanction Order when prosecution had already examined seven witnesses – Impugned judgment and order passed by High Court set aside and proceedings restored on file before Special Court. (Paras 8, 10 and 11)
Facts of the case:
Vide impugned Judgment F.I.R. registered for offence punishable under Sections 7 and 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 has been allowed and consequent proceedings arising therefrom have been set aside by High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh. Short question that arises for determination of this Court is whether High Court could have set aside impugned Sanction Order and proceedings arising therefrom, more particularly, when trial had already commenced and the prosecution had examined seven witnesses.
Findings of Court:
High Court has committed gross error in quashing Sanction Order and consequent proceedings vide impugned order.
Result : Appeal allowed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Advocates appeared:
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Vivek Jain, D.A.G. Mr. Karan Sharma, AOR
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Vivek Gupta, AOR Mr. Ankit Verma, Adv.
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Vivek Jain, D.A.G. Mr. Karan Sharma, AOR
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Vivek Gupta, AOR Mr. Ankit Verma, Adv.
Table of Contents
2. Appellant contends quashing is improper after trial commencement; respondent argues the sanctioning authority was incompetent. (Para 4 , 5 )
3. High Court erred by quashing the sanction without finding a failure of justice, especially after the trial had commenced and witnesses were examined. (Para 8 , 9 )
4. Under Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, sanction errors cannot reverse proceedings unless a failure of justice is established. (Para 7 , 8 )
5. High Court order set aside, proceedings restored, and appeal allowed. (Para 10 , 13 )
6. Can a court reverse a finding or order based on an error in the sanction under the Prevention of Corruption Act?
Yes, but only if the court is satisfied that a failure of justice has in fact been occasioned by the absence, error, omission, or irregularity in the sanction. (Para 7 )
7. Does the term error in sanction under Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act include the competency of the sanctioning authority?
Yes, the Explanation to sub-section (4) of Section 19 specifically provides that for the purpose of the section, error includes the competency of the authority to grant sanction. (Para 7 , 8 )
8. What factor must the court consider when determining if a sanction error resulted in a failure of justice?
The court shall have regard to the fact whether the objection regarding the sanction could and should have been raised at an earlier stage in the proceedings. (Para 7 )
9. Is the competency of the sanctioning authority a question of law or a matter of evidence?
Whether the sanction has been granted by the competent authority or not is a matter of evidence to be proved by the prosecution during the course of the trial. (Para 8 , 11 )
JUDGMENT
1. Leave granted.
2. The present appeal, filed by the appellant-State of Punjab, is directed against the impugned judgment and order dated 20.05.2019, passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in CRM-M No. 11994 of 2019 (O&M), whereby the said petition, filed by the respondent-accused seeking quashing of Sanction Order dated 19.11.2018, in the case arising out of F.I.R. No. 02 dated 10.01.2024, registered at Police StationVigilance Bureau, Patiala Range, Patiala for the offence punishable under Sections 7 and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short “the Act”), has been allowed and the consequent proceedings arising therefrom have been set aside.
3. Heard learned counsels for the parties.
4. It is sought to be submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant-State of Punjab that the High Court had passed the impugned order when the trial had already commenced and the prosecution had already examined seven witnesses. Learned counsel places heavy reliance on the decision of this Court in the case of State of Karnataka, Lokayukta Police Versus S. Subbegowda (2023 SCC Online SC 911), to submit that the High Court has committed an error in quashing the Sanction Order and setting aside the proceedings arising therefrom when the trial has already commenced.
5. However, the learned counsel for the respondent-accused submits that the High Court has rightly quashed the proceedings considering the fact that earlier, Sanction sought was not granted by the competent authority and now, the impugned Sanction Order has been passed by an officer who was not competent to grant the Sanction to prosecute the respondent-accused.
6. The short question that arises for determination of this Court is whether the High Court could have set aside the impugned Sanction Order and the proceedings arising therefrom, more particularly, when the trial had already commenced and the prosecution had examined seven witnesses.
7. In our opinion, the judgment in the case of S. Subbegowda (supra) clinches the issue, in which, this Court in the similar facts and circumstances, after considering the provisions contained in Section 19 of the Act, has held as under: -
“11. The combined reading of sub-section (3) and (4) of Section 19 makes it clear that notwithstanding anything contained in the Code, no finding, sentence or order passed by the Special Judge shall be reversed or altered by a Court in appeal, confirmation or revision on the ground of, the absence of, or any error, omission or irregularity in the sanction required under sub-section (1), unless in the opinion of the Court, a failure of justice has in fact been occasioned thereby. sub-section
(4) further postulates that in determining under subsection (3) whether the absence of, or any error, omission or irregularity in the sanction has occasioned, or resulted in failure of justice, the Court shall have regard to the fact whether the objection could and should have been raised at an earlier stage in the proceedings. The explanation to sub-section (4) further provides that for the purpose of Section 19, error includes “competency of the authority to grant sanction”. Thus, it is clear from the language employed in sub-section (3) of Section 19 that the said sub-section has application to the proceedings before the Court in appeal, confirmation or revision, and not to the proceedings before the Special Judge. The said sub-section (3) clearly forbids the court in appeal, confirmation or revision, the interference with the order passed by the Special Judge on the ground that the sanction was bad, save and except in cases where the appellate or revisional court finds that the failure of justice had occurred by such invalidity.”
12. & 13……………………………
14. In the instant case, the Special Judge proceeded with the trial, on the second application for discharge filed by the respondent having not been pressed for by him. The Special Judge, while dismissing the third application filed by
