Mere Omission, Error Or Irregularity In Sanction Not Considered Fatal Unless It Results In Failure Of Justice: Supreme Court

The Court set aside the Judgment and Order of the High Court that set aside the sanction and the consequent acquittal under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (PCA). While confirming the other findings of the High Court, the Bench remanded the matter to the High Court to consider the question of the legality of the order of sanction under Section 19 of the PCA to consider “if the irregularity, if any, has occasioned or resulted in a failure of justice.”

The Bench of Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Justice Manoj Misra observed, “Apart from the clear statutory prescription of Section 19 of the Act, as informed by relevant court precedents, the High Court has also lost sight of Section 465 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 19735, which provides that a sentence or an order passed by the 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 the prosecution unless in the opinion of the court, a failure of justice has in fact been occasioned thereby.”

ASG Rajkumar Bhaskar Thakare represented the Appellant, while Advocate Sangram S. Saron appeared for the Respondent.

An FIR was registered alleging that the Respondent, a public servant, demanded and accepted a bribe. The Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) conducted a trap, which confirmed the allegations through positive phenolphthalein and sodium bicarbonate tests.

The Special Judge, Chandigarh, convicted the respondent under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the PCA, sentencing him to two years of rigorous imprisonment and imposing a fine.

The Punjab and Haryana High Court, while agreeing that the prosecution had proven demand and acceptance of the bribe, acquitted the respondent on the ground that the prosecution failed to examine the official who had granted sanction. The High Court held that the absence of such evidence rendered the sanction invalid.

The Supreme Court noted that both Section 19 of the PCA and Section 465 of the Cr.P.C. prevent a conviction or sentence from being reversed due to an error or irregularity in sanction unless it has caused a failure of justice.

“The substantial principle of requiring a sanction for prosecution and at the same time the principle in not negating the sentence or order of a court of competent jurisdiction are both incorporated in the Prevention of Corruption Act and the Criminal Procedure Code. The Court balances these values by the measure of whether failure of justice has in fact been occasioned,” the Bench remarked.

The Court reiterated its decision in CBI v. Ashok Kumar Aggarwal (2014) to point out that “failure of justice” must be substantiated and cannot merely be claimed as a formality. "However, a mere error, omission or irregularity in sanction is not considered to be fatal unless it has resulted in the failure of justice or has been occasioned thereby," the Bench held.

Consequently, the Court set aside the High Court’s judgment which had acquitted the Respondent, and remanded the matter to the High Court to reassess the legality of the sanction order.

The High Court was directed to determine whether any irregularity in the sanction order had led to a failure of justice, as required under Section 19 of the PCA.

Accordingly, the Supreme Court allowed the Appeal.

Cause Title: Central Bureau Of Investigation v. Jagat Ram (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 952)

Appearance:

Appellant: ASG Rajkumar Bhaskar Thakare; AOR Mukesh Kumar Maroria; Advocates Rukhmini Bobde, Chandra Prakash, Astha Singh, Padmesh Mishra and Nitesh Shrivastava

Respondent: Advocates Sangram S. Saron, Shubreet Kaur, Madhavrao B. Rajwade and Divya Jain; AOR Nikhil Jain

Click here to read/download the Judgment