Sanction for prosecution must be obtained from a competent authority; failure to do so invalidates the proceedings.

JUDGMENT :

A. BADHARUDEEN, J.

Crl.M.C.No.5862/2025 has been filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, to quash Annexure A2 Final Report and all further proceedings in Crime No.01/2019 of VACB, Kannur, now pending as C.C.No.11/2021 on the files of the Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge, Thalassery. The petitioner herein is the 1^st accused in the above case.

2. Crl.M.C No.4795/2025 has been filed by the 2^nd accused in the above case seeking the following prayer:

“Quash the Final Report in Crime No.VC 01/2019/KNR dated 08.04.2019 in CC No.11/2019 before the Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge, Thalassery and all further proceedings.”

3. Similarly, O.P.(Crl.) No.272/2022 has been filed by the 3^rd accused in the above case under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, seeking the following prayers:

“i. Allow this Original Petition (Criminal) by setting aside Exhibits-P1 & P2.

(i)(a) Issue an order declaring that in the absence of a valid sanction required to be obtained under section 19(1)(c) of the PC Act as against accused No.1 and 2, the final report as per Exhibit P2 is not valid in law and is required to be declared so.

ii. Issue such other appropriate order or direction that may be deemed to be just and equitable in the facts and circumstances of the case, for which favor the petitioner as in duty bound shall ever pray.”

4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Special Public Prosecutor in detail. Perused the records, relevant statements and documents produced.

5. In this case, the prosecution alleges commission of offences punishable under Section 13 (1)(d) r/w 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as ‘PC Act’ for short) as well as under Sections 120B, 468, 471 and 420 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE (hereinafter referred to as ‘IPC’ for short) by accused Nos.1 to 3. The allegation in a nutshell is that the 1^st accused, who had been working as a High School Assistant (Social Science) in Aided Higher Secondary School, Kadambur, under the Education District, Kannur, on the premise of getting an appointment to the post of Higher Secondary School Teacher (History) in M.I.M. Higher Secondary School, Perode, Kozhikode, without doing the job of HSA (Social Science) in Kadambur school, worked in M.I.M. H.S.S., Perode. Thereafter, records were forged on the premise that she had worked in Kadambur school with connivance of the 2^nd accused, the Headmistress, and the 3^rd accused, the Manager of the school, as part of conspiracy hatched between them and thereby, the 1^st accused obtained Rs.1,84,212/- (Rupees one lakh eighty four thousand two hundred and twelve only) as illegal pecuniary gain.

6. While challenging the final report, it is pointed out by the learned senior counsel for the 3^rd accused that, in this case, sanction to prosecute accused Nos.1 to 3 was issued by the Personal Assistant to the District Education Officer, holding the additional charge of Kannur. According to the learned counsel for accused Nos.1 to 3, the competent authority to grant sanction under Section 19 (1)(c) of the PC Act is the District Education Officer, Kannur. Since the sanction was granted by the Personal Assistant to the District Education Officer, per se, the same is illegal and accordingly, acting on the said sanction, cognizance taken by the Special Court for the said offences is illegal. The learned senior counsel for the 3^rd accused argued further that insofar as the maintenance of attendance and drawing of salary, the 3^rd accused, the Manager, has no role. Therefore, none of the of