Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA, MANOJ MISRA, JJ.
Central Bureau of Investigation – Appellant
Versus
Jagat Ram – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No(s). 4964 of 2024 (@ SLP (Crl.) No. 16978 of 2024 @ D. No. 9288 of 2018)
Decided On : 03-12-2024
(A) Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 – Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) r/w Sections 13(2) and 20 – Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 465 [Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 – Section 511] – Sanction for prosecution – Sentence or an order passed by court of competent jurisdiction shall not be reversed or altered by a court of appeal, confirmation or revision on account of any error or irregularity in any sanction for prosecution unless in opinion of court, failure of justice has in fact been occasioned thereby – Substantial principle of requiring sanction for prosecution and at the same time principle in not negating sentence or order of a court of competent jurisdiction are both incorporated in Prevention of Corruption Act and Criminal Procedure Code – Court balances these values by measure of whether failure of justice has in fact been occasioned – High Court has taken up issue of sanction, rather than proof of sanction on its own and without assistance of counsel for respondent-accused – Judgment and order passed by High Court to the extent that it set aside sanction and consequent acquittal, set aside and matter remanded to High Court for considering question of legality of order of sanction under Section 19 of Act to consider if any irregularity has occasioned or resulted in failure of justice. (Paras 8, 9, 10, 14 and 15)
(B) Criminal Law – Failure of justice – Meaning behind text of phrase ‘failure of justice’ must be understood in context of object behind larger public policy on sanction for prosecution – Expression “failure of justice” is an extremely pliable or facile an expression which can be made to fit into any case – Court must endeavour to find out truth – There would be “failure of justice” not only by unjust conviction but also by acquittal of guilty as a result of unjust or negligent failure to produce requisite evidence – Plea of prejudice has to be in relation to investigation or trial and not matters falling beyond their scope – Once accused is able to show that there has been serious prejudice caused to him with respect to either of these aspects, and that same has defeated rights available to him under legal jurisprudence, accused can seek relief from court. (Para 7)
Facts of the case:
Central Bureau of Investigation is in appeal against judgment of Punjab and Haryana High Court allowing criminal appeal filed by accused under Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. After trial, Special Judge, Chandigarh convicted the accused under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of Act and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and also imposed a fine of Rs.1000/-.
Findings of Court:
In the circumstances and in interest of justice, even if it is a formality we consider it appropriate to permit respondent to raise and contest this issue of failure of justice due to irregularity in sanction before High Court.
Result : Criminal Appeal allowed.
Certainly. Based on the provided legal document, the key points are as follows:
The principles governing sanction for prosecution and the integrity of court orders are both incorporated within the relevant statutes, namely the Prevention of Corruption Act and the Criminal Procedure Code. These principles aim to ensure that a failure of justice is established only if an irregularity or error in sanction has actually resulted in such a failure (!) (!) .
The court emphasizes that an error, omission, or irregularity in the grant of sanction does not automatically invalidate a conviction or order unless it has caused a failure of justice. The determination of whether a failure of justice has occurred depends on whether the irregularity has materially affected the outcome of the trial or the rights of the accused (!) (!) .
The concept of "failure of justice" is flexible and must be understood in the context of the broader policy objectives behind the requirement of sanction. It encompasses not only unjust convictions but also unjust or negligent acquittals resulting from failure to produce requisite evidence or other trial irregularities that prejudiced the accused (!) (!) .
The purpose of requiring prior sanction is to prevent frivolous or motivated prosecutions against public servants, ensuring that there is a reasonable connection between the act and official duties. However, errors in granting sanction are procedural and do not necessarily vitiate the proceedings unless they lead to a failure of justice (!) (!) .
The relevant statutory provisions and procedural safeguards aim to balance the need for accountability with protecting the rights of the accused. Courts are instructed to assess whether an irregularity in sanction has resulted in a failure of justice, considering whether such an objection could and should have been raised earlier in the proceedings (!) (!) (!) .
The court clarified that while errors in sanction do not automatically nullify proceedings, a thorough examination is necessary if such irregularities are claimed to have caused a failure of justice. The judgment underscores that the ultimate inquiry is whether the irregularity has impacted the fairness of the trial or the rights of the parties involved (!) (!) .
In the case at hand, the High Court initially set aside the sanction and acquitted the accused due to the absence of proof that the sanctioning authority had applied its mind. However, the Supreme Court found that the evidence on record supported the validity of the sanction, and that the irregularity did not necessarily result in a failure of justice. Therefore, the Supreme Court remanded the case for the High Court to re-evaluate the legality of the sanction without automatically invalidating the proceedings (!) .
The Supreme Court ultimately allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court's order that had nullified the sanction, and remanded the matter for further consideration of whether any irregularity in the sanction order caused a failure of justice. The other findings of the trial court were maintained (!) .
Please let me know if you need a more detailed analysis or any specific legal advice related to this case.
JUDGMENT :
PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA, J.
1. Delay Condoned. Leave granted.
2. The Central Bureau of Investigation is in appeal against the judgment of Punjab and Haryana High Court allowing the criminal appeal1[CRA-S-No. 1192-SB of 2002 dated 10.05.2017.] filed by the accused under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 19882[Hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’.].
3. On the basis of F.I.R. on 02.12.1994, the C.B.I registered a case under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of the Act and a trap was arranged leading to the respondent-accused getting caught ieed manding and collecting a bribe as evidenced by a positive test for phenolphthalein and sodium bicarbonate. After trial, the Special Judge, Chandigarh convicted the accused under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of the Act and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and also imposed a fine of Rs.1000/-.
4. Having considered the evidence in detail, the High Court came to the following conclusion:
However, the High Court then took up the issue of sanction and found that though PW-9, M.S. Mahi Pal had proved the sanction order Exhibit PW-9/A, it came to the conclusion that the prosecution had “not examined any official who had actually applied his/her mind and given the sanction”. In this view of the matter, learned Judge proceeded to acquit the accused.
5. Heard Ms. Rukhmini Bobde, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the CBI and Mr. Sangram S. Saron, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent. For our analysis, Section 19 of the Act, to the degree its relevant, is reproduced herein as follows:
(1) No court shall take cognizance of an offence punishable under Sections 7, 10, 11, 13 and 15 alleged to have been committed by a public servant, except with the previous sanction,-
[…]
(3) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974),
(a) no finding, sentence or order passed by a special Judge shall be reversed or altered by a Court in appeal, confirmation or revision on the ground of the absence of, or any error, omission or irregularity in, the sanction required under sub-section (1), unless in the opinion of that Court, a failure of justice has in fact been occasioned thereby;
(b) no Court shall stay the proceedings under this Act on the ground of any error, omission or irregularity in the sanction granted by the authority, unless it is satisfied that such error, omission or irregularity has resulted in a failure of justice;
(c) no Court shall stay the proceedings under this Act on any other ground and no Court shall exercise the powers of revision in relation to any interlocutory order passed in any inquiry, trial, appeal or other proceedings.
(4) In determining under sub-section (3) whether the absence of, or any error, omission or irregularity in, such sanction has occasioned or resulted in a failure of justice the court shall have regard to the fact whether the objection could and should have been raised at any earlier stage in the proceedings.”
6. It is clear that under sub-section 3(a) of Section 19 of the Act, no finding, sentence or order by a Special Judge shall be reversed by a court of appeal on the ground of absence, error, omission or irregularity in the sanction. This is the first principle. However, such a restraint against reversal or alteration is always subject to the opinion of the court that failure of justice has in fact been occasioned thereby. Sub-section (4) of Section 19 of the Act further provides that while construing whether the absence, error, omission or irregularity has occasioned or resulted in failure of justice, the court will examine the fact that whether an obj
Sanction for prosecution – Substantial principle of requiring sanction for prosecution and at the same time principle in not negating sentence or order of a court of competent jurisdiction are both i....
(1) Question with regard to validity of such sanction should be raised at the earliest stage of proceedings.(2) Interlocutory application seeking discharge in midst of trial would not be maintainable....
Point of law : Section 19(3) of the PC Act indicates that it deals with three situations: (i) Sub-Clause (a) deals a situation where a final judgment and sentence has been delivered by the Special Ju....
The validity of prosecution sanction must be evaluated at trial; minor irregularities do not nullify proceedings without evident failure of justice.
The judgment established that the absence of sanction can be raised at the inception and at the threshold as it goes to the root of the matter. It also emphasized that the validity or illegality of t....
The validity of a sanction under the Prevention of Corruption Act can be challenged at any stage of proceedings, and a fresh sanction does not violate the principle against double jeopardy if the pre....
Any error, omission or irregularity in grant of sanction will not affect any finding, sentence or order passed by a competent Court unless in opinion of court a failure of justice has been occasioned....
Illegal gratification - Previous sanction necessary for prosecution - Granted sanction for prosecution not maintainable - Section 19 of P.C. Act empowers sanctioning authority to protect innocent pub....
Sanction for prosecution of public servants must reflect independent assessment; repeated refusals by the authority, absent new evidence, undermine legitimacy of prosecution.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
