A valid sanction for prosecution under the Prevention of Corruption Act must be obtained before charges are framed; post-charge challenges to sanction are not permissible.

Order :

(Arvind Kumar Verma, J.)

1. The instant petition under Section 528 of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita , 2023 has been filed by the petitioner calling under question the order dated 07/10/2024 passed in Special Criminal Case No.03/2021 by the Special Judge ( Prevention of Corruption Act ) & 1^st Additional Sessions Judge, Raipur, whereby the application preferred by the petitioner under Section 19 (1) of Prevention of Corruption Act , 1988 has been rejected.

2. The brief facts of this case are that the petitioner has been prosecuted in connection with the FIR No. 17/2020 dated 01.05.2020 registered at Police Station ACB/EOW, Raipur (CG) for offence under section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act , 1988. In order to prove the charge, the prosecution has filed charge sheet before the Special Court and on the basis of the same the learned Special Court has framed the charges against the petitioner under section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act , 1988. It is the case of the prosecution that the petitioner being a public servant has agreed to receive undue benefit of Rs. 1,02,000/- in three installments from the complainant Neeraj Singh Thakur in lieu of payment of bill amount regarding cleanliness of Raipur Railway Colony in the performance of public duty and on 30/04/2020 he took thirty thousand rupees out of the said amount and obtained undue benefit. The case is pending trial before the Court below.

3. During pendency of the trial, the petitioner moved an application under section 19(1) of Prevention of Corruption Act , 1988 for discharge on the ground that PW-5 Dr. Joy Barla is not a competent authority with regard to grant of sanction for prosecution against the petitioner and the petitioner further has contended that the sanction Ex.P/23 has been issued by PW-5 under section 19(1)(c) of the Act, for which, the authority first had to be competent to remove the accused from his office, however, the PW-5 has stated that he is not appropriate authority and also stated that the appropriate authority in the case is Senior Divisional Personnel Officer.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the trial Court has not looked into the aspect that the trial is vitiated due to invalid sanction and continuance of trial would amount to complete failure of justice as Section 19 (1) of the Act specifically operates as a complete and absolute bar to any Court taking cognizance of any offence punishable under Sections 7, 10, 11, 13 and 15 of the Act against a public servant except with the previous sanction of the competent authority. He would next contend that the finding of the trial Court that the stage of discharge has already passed then it could have disposed of the application stating that the issue of sanction raised at this stage would be considered at the time of final arguments. In support of his contention he placed reliance on the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the matter of Nanjappa Versus State of Karnataka { (2015) 14 SCC 186 } and Central Bureau of Investigation Vs. Ashok Kumar Aggarwal { (2014) 14 SCC 295 } and would pray that order dated 07/10/2024 passed by the trial court may be set aside and the application for discharge of the petitioner may be allowed.

5. Per contra, learned State counsel would submit that on appreciation of material and evidence, the trial Court has rightly passed the impugned order and which do not require any interference by this Court.

6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents.

7. Perusal of the documents would show that the petitioner has been prosecuted in connection with the FIR No.17/2020 dated 01/05/2020 registered at Police Station ACB/EOW, Raipur for the offence under Section 7 of the P.C. Act, 1988. In the said case, the charges have been framed against the petitioner under Section 7 of the P.C. Act, 1988 because the petitioner being a public servant had received an illicit sum of Rs.1,02,000/- from the complainant. The petit