Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(SC) 713

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA, ATUL S. CHANDURKAR, JJ.
The State of Madhya Pradesh – Appellant
Versus
Ravi Shankar Singh & Ors. – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No(s). 2191-2192 of 2025 With Criminal Appeal No(s). 2904-2905 of 2025
Decided On : 10-06-2026

Advocates appeared:
For the Appellant(s) : Mr. Rajeev Singh, AOR Mr. Naveen Kumar Singh, Adv. Mr. Nishant Ramakantrao Katneshwarkar, AOR
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Nishant Ramakantrao Katneshwarkar, AOR Mr. Amalpushp Shroti, AOR Mr. Naveen Kumar, Adv.

The code of criminal procedure provides a comprehensive, exhaustive framework for trials. Courts cannot exercise judicial discretion to create new procedural stages, such as mandating the examination of a sanctioning authority before framing charges, as this effectively constitutes legislative action by rewriting the procedure established by law.

Headnote:(A) Prevention of Corruption Act - Section 19 - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Sections 311, 397, 401, 482 - Criminal trial - Procedural mandate - Whether High Court has jurisdiction to devise new procedural stages in trial - Held, no. The code provides a complete, exhaustive procedure for conduct of trials (Chapters XV to XXI) - General provisions cannot be utilized to introduce a pre-charge stage for examining the sanctioning authority - Such judicial intervention amounts to overstepping legislative intent by creating a new trial stage through judicial fiat. (Paras 7, 8)

(B) Writ Jurisdiction - Scope and Ambit - Constitutional courts in exercise of writ jurisdiction cannot override established statutory procedures under the pretext of formulating guidelines - Trial courts must strictly adhere to the procedure prescribed by law, and judicial bodies are not empowered to rewrite the code of conduct governing criminal trials. (Para 8)

Facts of the case:
Public officials were prosecuted under anti-corruption laws. The High Court, while dealing with the validity of the prosecution sanction, issued guidelines directing trial courts to compulsorily examine the sanctioning authority under the provision for recalling or re-examining witnesses (Section 311 CrPC) as a mandatory pre-condition before framing of charges, regardless of whether the same was challenged.

Findings of Court:
The Supreme Court held that the directions were unsustainable as they introduced a new procedural stage not provided for by the criminal code. It emphasized that a court cannot use its jurisdiction to bypass or evolve a methodology for trial that contradicts the existing statutory scheme, nor can it impose such mandates upon subordinate courts.

Issues: Whether the High Court, in exercise of its writ jurisdiction, can mandate a new procedural stage in a criminal trial requiring the examination of the sanctioning authority prior to the framing of charges.

Ratio Decidendi: The court maintained that the procedure for conducting criminal trials is exhaustively provided in the governing statutes. A judicial directive that forces an additional procedural step (examining witnesses before charge framing) is ultra vires of the judicial power as it amounts to legislative amendment by a court of law.

Result: Guidelines/directions issued by the High Court set aside; appeals allowed.

Table of Content
1. high court's directive challenged: procedural validity of sanction examination. (Para 1 , 2 , 3)
2. dispute on interpretation of section 311 crpc regarding trial stages. (Para 4 , 5 , 6)
3. courts cannot invent procedural stages by judicial fiat. (Para 7 , 8)
4. invalidation of high court directives exceeding procedural statutory limits. (Para 9 , 10 , 11)

ORDER

Criminal Appeal No(s). 2191-2192/2025

1. These Appeals are directed against the orders passed by the High Court in the Writ Petition as well as in the Review Petition. While dismissing the Writ Petition seeking quashing of the sanction for prosecution granted by the Competent Authority under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 [For short, “the PC Act”] against the first respondent-Ravi Shankar Singh, the High Court has issued certain directions as contained in paragraphs 32 and 33 of the impugned order dated 08.05.2020.

2. Admittedly, the first respondent-accused has been acquitted of the charges for committing the offences under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of the PC Act and, thus, the issue regarding validity of the sanction has become infructuous. However, the appellant-State is mainly aggrieved by certain directions which the High Court has issued in paragraphs 32 and 33 of the impugned order dated 08.05.2020. Therefore, in the peculiar facts of the case, we have proceeded to decide the issue concerning the High Court’s power and jurisdiction to issue the nature of directions as contained in paragraphs 32 and 33 of the impugned order.

3. The High Court vide impugned order dated 08.05.2020 has issued the following directions:

“32. In our considered opinion, the advantage of recording the evidence of the Sanctioning Authority U/S 311 CRPC, before framing of charge, are as follows.

(a) The Court saves precious time if the evidence of the Sanctioning Authority reveals that the Sanction is bad either on account of it being passed by an incompetent authority or passed without application of mind which case, the accused can be discharged and the charge-sheet returned to the investigating agency.

(b) The investigating agency has the opportunity of seeking fresh sanction and refiling the chargesheet before the Trial Court.

(d) The accused cannot get the benefit of a seeking quashment of the case on the ground of delayed trial, which he may otherwise get if he is discharged by the Trial Court at the end of the trial after a protracted trial spanning over a decade.

33.(sic) In view of what we have discussed and held hereinabove; we propose to lay down the following guidelines to be followed by the learned trial court while trying a case under the Prevention of Corruption Act.

(a) The trial court shall examine the sanctioning authority exercising powers under section 311 CRPC before framing charge, even if there is no challenge to the same by the accused, as the validity of the sanction order can to to the root of the case and can render the very act of taking cognizance itself void ab initio.

(b) If the trial court finds that the sanction passed in consonance with the provisions of section 19 of the PC Act on both the parameters of competence of the sanctioning authority and application of mind on the part of the sanctioning authority, then the trial court shall proceed to the next stage and decide whether charges should be framed against the accused after hearing the prosecution and the defence.

(c) If the trial court is of the opinion that the sanction order under section 19 of the PC Act is fundamentally defective on either of the parameters, it shall discharge the accused and return the chargesheet to the investigating agency, which shall be at liberty to file the chargesheet once again after seeking a fresh sanction under section 19 of the PC Act.

(d) These directions are prospective in nature and shall not affect the proceedings in those cases where the charges

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

Judicial Analysis

2026 Supreme(SC) 713

SUPREME COURT OF INDIAPRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA, ATUL S. CHANDURKAR, JJ.The State of Madhya Pradesh – AppellantVersusRavi Shankar Singh & Ors. – Respondent Criminal Appeal No(s). 2191-2192 of 2025 With Criminal Appeal No(s). 2904-2905 of 2025Decided On : 10-06-2026

Judicial Analysis

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA, ATUL S. CHANDURKAR, JJ.
The State of Madhya Pradesh – Appellant
Versus
Ravi Shankar Singh & Ors. – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No(s). 2191-2192 of 2025 With Criminal Appeal No(s). 2904-2905 of 2025
Decided On : 10-06-2026