##PAGE1##

Serial No. 103 Supplementary List 1 HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT SRINAGAR CRM(M) No. 918/2026 CrlM (2085/2026)

Nisar Ahmad Rather …Appellant/Petitioner(s)

Through: Mr. Junaid Rashid, Advocate Vs.

UT through P/S Anti-Corruption Burea ...Respondent(s)

Through:

CORAM:

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY PARIHAR, JUDGE.

ORDER 31.10.2026

1. The petitioner, who figures as an accused in FIR No. 01/2023 registered with the Anti-Corruption Bureau, Srinagar, for the commission of an offence punishable under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”), has been charge-sheeted before the learned trial court on 29.05.2024. The petitioner moved an application before the trial court seeking dismissal of the charge-sheet on the ground that the prosecution was not supported by a valid sanction as contemplated under Section 19 of the Act.

2. The principal contention urged on behalf of the petitioner before the learned trial court was that, although sanction for his prosecution had purportedly been accorded vide Government Order No. 12-JK- GAD(Vig) of 2024 dated 29.04.2024, the signatures of the sanctioning authority appearing on the said order bore the date 24.09.2024. It was, accordingly, contended that the discrepancy between the date of issuance of the sanction order and the date appearing against the signatures of the sanctioning authority rendered the sanction legally unsustainable and vitiated the prosecution.

3. The learned trial court, upon consideration of the submissions advanced before it, dismissed the application. It observed that the charge-sheet had admittedly been presented on 29.05.2024 and, therefore, the date 24.09.2024 appearing against the signatures of the sanctioning authority could reasonably be attributed to an inadvertent or clerical error. The trial court was of the view that the discrepancy was merely technical in nature and did not, by itself, constitute a sufficient ground for declaring the sanction invalid or for dismissing the charge-sheet.

4. The petitioner had placed reliance upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mohd. Iqbal Ahmad v. State of Andhra Pradesh, AIR 1979 SC 677, to contend that a valid sanction was a prerequisite for prosecuting a public servant under the Act. The trial court, however, distinguished the aforesaid judgment on the ground that the sanction order under consideration therein did not disclose the material or circumstances forming the basis for according sanction and, consequently, raised an issue regarding application of mind by the sanctioning authority. According to the trial court, the controversy in the present case was confined to a discrepancy in the dates appearing on the sanction order.

5. Assailing the order passed by the learned trial court, the counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the impugned order was legally unsustainable, inasmuch as the trial court had failed to appreciate the mandatory character of the provisions contained in Section 19 of the Act. It was contended that the requirement of obtaining a valid sanction for prosecution of a public servant is a statutory safeguard and that any infirmity affecting the validity of such sanction goes to the root of the prosecution. It was further urged that the learned trial court could not have presumed, in the absence of any supporting material, that the discrepancy in the dates appearing on the sanction order was attributable to a clerical or human error.

6. During the course of arguments, however, the counsel for the petitioner fairly conceded that the sanction order was not being assailed on the ground of non-application of mind by the sanctioning authority. The material collected during investigation, as reflected in the charge-sheet, reveals that the petitioner, who was posted as an Accounts Assistant in the Directorate of Accounts and Treasuries, Kashmir, was allegedly involved in demanding and accepting illegal gratificati