Prohibition U/S 19(3) PC Act Doesn’t Come Into Play Where Sanction Order Is Invalid & Issue Was Raised During Trial Pendency: Allahabad HC
The Allahabad High Court observed that the prohibition under Section 19(3) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (PC Act) does not come into play where the sanction order is invalid and the issue is raised during the pendency of trial.
The Court observed thus in an application filed by the accused challenging the order of the Special Judge, Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI).
A Single Bench of Justice Rajeev Misra held, “It is thus apparent that where the sanction order is invalid and the said issue has been raised during the pendency of trial then in that eventuality the prohibtion contained in Sub-Section (3) of Section 19 of PC Act restraining the Superior Courts from interference with an order passed by the Court in proceedings under the Prevention of Corruption Act, does not come into play.”
Senior Advocate Anoop Trivedi and Advocate Abhinav Gaur appeared for the applicant/accused while Advocate Sanjay Kumar Yadav appeared for the opposite party/CBI.
Factual Background -
In 2016, an FIR was lodged by CBI and a case was registered under Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Section 7 of the PC Act. Two persons were named as accused including the applicant. After investigation, the applicant along with the co-accused was charge-sheeted under Sections 7 and 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of PC Act. The Special Judge took cognizance of the case and since the applicant and the co-accused were public servants, a requisite sanction was required under Section 19 of PC Act for their criminal prosecution and the same was accorded.
In view of the requisite sanction qua the criminal prosecution of the accused persons having been accorded, there was no impediment in the trial. Hence, the Trial Judge proceeded with the trial. However, during the trial, the accused filed an application under Section 227 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) claiming discharge in the case on various grounds. However, none of the grounds found favour with the Court. Resultantly, the discharge application was rejected and being aggrieved, the applicant approached the High Court.
The High Court in view of the facts and circumstances of the case noted, “… the competence of the Director (HR) BSNL, New Delhi to accord sanction in terms of Section 19 of The Prevention of Corruption Act to the criminal prosecution of charge sheeted accused including present applicant has been dealt with at length and in detail with reference to the provisions contained in the relevant Service Rules namely BSNL, Conduct, Discipline and Appeal Rules, 2006 in paragraphs 19, 20, 21 and 22 of this judgment. On the basis of above, it can be safely concluded that the authority competent to grant sanction in terms of Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act for the prosecution of charge sheeted accused including applicant is the Chief Managing Director (BSNL), New Delhi. As such, the sanction order dated 25.02.2017 passed by the Director (HR) BSNL, New Delhi is not only illegal but also in excess of jurisdiction.”
The Court reiterated that the issue of jurisdiction can be raised at any stage of the proceedings and said that since the sanction order passed qua the criminal prosecution of applicant and other co-accused is manifestly without jurisdiction, their prosecution on the basis of an illegal sanction order cannot be allowed to be sustained on the ground of laches or the ground that a period of six years has rolled by since the date of the sanction order.
“In the case in hand, this Court finds that sanction accorded qua the criminal prosecution of applicant and other charge sheeted accused in terms of Section 19 of The Prevention of Corruption Act is illegal and without jurisdiction. What follows from above, has already been dealt with by the Bench in the case of Nanjappa (Supra), wherein the Court held that the trial of an accused on the basis of invalid sanction is non-est in the eyes of law and therefore, shall not forbid second trial for the same offences upon grant of a valid sanction for such a prosecution (paragraph 22 of the judgment in Nanjappa (Supra)”, it further emphasised.
The Court, therefore, concluded that since the trial of the applicant has commenced on the basis of an invalid sanction, the same has caused a failure of justice.
Accordingly, the High Court allowed the application, set aside the impugned order, and discharged the accused.
Cause Title- Rajendra Singh Verma v. C.B.I. (Neutral Citation: 2024:AHC:110653)
Appearance:
Applicant: Senior Advocate Anoop Trivedi, Advocates Abhinav Gaur, and Vibhu Rai.
Opposite Party: Advocate Sanjay Kumar Yadav
