The validity of prosecution sanction must be evaluated at trial; minor irregularities do not nullify proceedings without evident failure of justice.

JUDGMENT :

ANAND SHARMA, J.

1. The petitioner has approached this Court by way of the present criminal miscellaneous petition under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter to be referred as ‘ BNSS ’) seeking quashing of the prosecution sanction order dated 28.01.2025 passed by the Commissioner of Police, Barrackpore, Kolkata in connection with FIR No. 46/2024 registered at Police Station CPS, Jaipur, District ACB for the offence punishable under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter to be referred as ‘the Act of 1988’).

2. First and foremost submission made by Shri A. K. Gupta, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner, is that the impugned sanction order suffers from patent illegality for lack of application of mind and non-consideration of material evidence before its issuance. It is contended that the prosecution sanction was granted mechanically, merely on the directions of the investigating officer and the sanctioning authority did not independently evaluate the facts or consult the concerned investigating officer before granting sanction.

3. Shri A.K.Gupta, learned Senior Counsel further submitted that no record such as the FIR, statements of witnesses or other material collected during investigation had been placed before the sanctioning authority. Consequently, the sanctioning authority could not have formed an independent satisfaction as mandated under Section 19 of the Act of 1988. Hence, the prosecution sanction order is void ab initio and cannot confer jurisdiction upon the trial court to take cognizance.

4. Learned Senior Counsel pressed his challenge by submitting that order dated 28.01.2025 does not disclose the basis of the sanction or any indication that the sanctioning authority evaluated the available material. The order merely recites that a request was received from the ACB for granting sanction and the sanctioning authority was directed to grant the same. The absence of reference to documentary or oral evidence collected during investigation plainly reveals that the sanctioning authority acted on extraneous direction rather than an independent comprehension of facts. It was further submitted by Shri Gupta, learned Senior Counsel that the record bears no indication that the complete investigation file or relevant materials were placed before the sanctioning authority prior to issuance of the prosecution sanction. Consequently, the statutory safeguard enshrined under Section 19 of the Act of 1988 stands violated, which is causing serious prejudice and miscarriage of justice to the petitioner.

5. Reliance has been placed by Shri A.K. Gupta, learned Senior Counsel upon several precedents of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, particularly Anirudhsinhji Karansinhji Jadeja & Another Vs. State of Gujarat (1995) 5 SCC 302 , in order to support his contention that the prosecution sanction granted without consultation with the investigating officer or proper assessment of material reflects non-application of mind. Learned Senior Counsel heavily relied upon Constitutional Bench judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Matajog Dobey v. H.C. Bhari , (1955) 2 SCC 388 to press upon his submission that prosecution sanction is not a mere formality, but a safeguard for public servants against frivolous prosecuti