The requirement of prior sanction under the Prevention of Corruption Act is essential for the prosecution of public servants, and failure to obtain it renders proceedings void unless it results in a failure of justice.

JUDGMENT

Chandra Dhari Singh, J.

1. The instant petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter "Cr.P.C.") read with Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed seeking setting aside of order dated 7th August 2014 passed by learned Special Judge-CBI (PC Act) -06, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi (hereinafter "learned Special Judge") in CC No. 03/12.

FACTUAL MATRIX

2. The petitioner herein is a public servant who has been named as an accused in RC No. 47(A)/99/CBI/ACB/ND under Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) and 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter "PC Act"). Learned Special Judge vide order dated 11th April 2008 framed charges against the petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) and 13(1)(e) of the PC Act for disproportionate assets of Rs.9,48,19,816/-. Learned Special Judge also framed charges under Section 109 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter "IPC") against the other persons named as accused.

3. During pendency of the trial, in the present case, this Court in Crl. M.C. No.2695 of 2010, titled as G.S. Matharoo vs. CBI vide judgment and order dated 25th January 2012, held that in cases of Group-A employees of the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (hereinafter "MCD"), it is the Corporation, that is the authority competent to grant sanction under Section 19 of the PC Act and the Commissioner, MCD is not the competent authority to grant sanction for prosecution of Group-A employees of the MCD. The said judgment was confirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court vide order dated 26th August 2014 passed in SLP (Crl) No. 7931/2012.

4. The petitioner, after pronouncement of judgment dated 25th January 2012 by a coordinate bench of this Court, filed an application dated 3rd April 2012 before the learned Special Judge praying for dropping of the criminal proceedings pending against him on the ground that since in present case the sanction as required under Section 19 of the PC Act was not obtained from the Corporation, which is the competent authority, therefore, the cognizance taken by the learned Special Judge and the proceedings initiated against the petitioner were without jurisdiction and void, having been initiated without obtaining sanction from the Corporation as mandated by Section 19 of the PC Act.

5. Learned Special Judge vide order dated 7th August 2014 dismissed the said application. Hence, the present petition has been filed.

SUBMISSIONS

6. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that the impugned order dated 7th August 2014, whereby the petitioner's application for dropping of criminal proceedings was dismissed, is contrary to the law laid down by this Court in the case of G.S. Matharoo (Supra) and again in CBI vs. Ram Bhaj Banal & Anr passed in Crl.Rev. P. 68/2013 on 14th September 2013, which settles down the position that in cases of Group 'A' employees of the MCD, it is the Corporation, that is the competent authority to grant sanction in terms of Section 19 of the PC Act and not the Commissioner, MCD. The decision of G.S. Matharoo (Supra) was further upheld by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of MCD vs. Dr. Ved Prakash Kanoji & Anr; 2013 SCC OnLine Del 791.

7. It is submitted that the petitioner herein was an Executive Engineer, MCD, Group-A employee of MCD, at the time of grant of sanction of the prosecution. Thus, prosecution of the petitioner is without jurisdiction and against the mandate of law thereby making the entire proceedings void ab initio.

8. It is further submitted that the sanction is the genesis of the cognizance, and without such sanction the entire proceedings are void ab initio and unlawful. It is further submitted that sanction is a precursory sacrosanct step to initiate criminal proceedings against Public Officer, and the lack of a valid sanction precludes a Court from taking cognizance of an offence under Section 19(1) of P