The Allahabad High Court has observed that the absence of requisite sanction under Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 is a critical procedural defect which invalidates the cognizance and subsequent proceedings.

In that context, the Bench of Justice Shamim Ahmed observed that, "the purpose of prosecution sanction is to provide a safeguard against frivolous or vexatious litigation. It ensures that the prosecution of a public servant is based on substantial grounds and is scrutinized by a higher authority before proceeding to trial. The absence of requisite sanction under Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 is a critical procedural defect that invalidates the cognizance and subsequent proceedings. As such, the prosecutions initiated without the necessary sanction are deemed null and void."

In this case, two retired engineers from the Uttar Pradesh Irrigation Department were accused of corrupt practices during the appointment of Junior Clerks in 2008. The charges were filed under Sections 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

The High Court observed that, "there is nothing in the summoning order to show that the Magistrate concerned perused the material available on record before passing summoning order and taking cognizance on the charge sheet. Hence the summoning and cognizance order is bad in the eyes of law and resultantly it is not sustainable as the learned Magistrate failed to look into the oral as well as documentary evidence before the impugned order was passed."

In light of the same, the Court held that to meet the ends of justice the proceeding of the case was liable to be quashed.

Cause Title: Anil Katiyar & Anr. vs State of Uttar Pradesh

Click here to read/download the Judgment


Allahabad High CourtJustice Shamim AhmedPrevention of Corruption Act

Ananya Soni