Sanction U/s. 19(1) Of PC Act Obtained After Order Of Cognizance Is Not Void: Supreme Court
The Supreme Court has refused to accept the contention that a sanction requisite under Section 19(1) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 which has been taken after the cognizance order has been passed by the trial court must be treated as void.
The Bench of Justice Sanjiv Khanna and Justice Sanjay Kumar observed, “In view of Section 19(1) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, we do not think that the trial Court was justified and correct in law in taking cognizance in the absence of sanction by the competent authority… During the course of hearing, it was argued on behalf of the appellant, Shivendra Nath Verma, that as the sanction dated 27.07.2022 was obtained after the order of cognizance dated 12.10.2020, the said sanction should be treated as void in view of the decision of this Court in Nanjappa v. State of Karnataka. We are not inclined to accept the said submission. The ratio of the said decision is to the effect that the trial Court could not have taken cognizance in view of the bar contained in Section 19(1) of the 1988 Act. We do not think that the ratio of the aforesaid decision extends to invalidating the sanction granted, after the order taking cognizance was passed.”
AAG Bharat Shrivastava appeared for the Petitioners while AOR Akshat Shrivastava appeared for the Respondents.
In the present case, the trial court took cognizance of a case without the requisite sanction by the competent authority under Section 19(1) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Later on, the competent authority granted the sanction.
While clarifying the decision of the Court in Nanjappa v. State of Karnataka (2015), the Court refused to accept the contention made by the Petitioner that the sanction obtained after the cognizance order should be treated as void. The Court held that the ratio of the said decision is to the effect that the trial Court could not have taken cognizance in view of the bar contained in Section 19(1).
The Court set aside the order taking cognizance and the order passed by the Jharkhand High Court upholding the cognizance order and also clarified that the observations made in the order shall only be applicable to the petitioner in the present case and that the order taking cognizance against the other accused, where sanction was not required, will not get affected.
Accordingly, the Court allowed the appeal.
Cause Title: Shivendra Nath Verma v. Union of India
Appearances:
Petitioners: Senior Advocate Sunil Kumar, AOR Himanshu Shekhar, Advocates Parth Shekhar, Ambali Vedasen, Shubham Singh, Vijay Singh, Arvind Kumar Tomar, Nikhil Kumar, Md. Sonu Mia, Sudip Patra, Rachna Ranjan, Monica Haseja, Kamlika Samadder, Rajat Sinha Roy, Vishal Prasad, Gyanesh Kumar Maheshwari and Rajat Mishra.
Respondents: ASG SV Raju, AOR Mukesh Kumar Maroria, Advocates Zoheb Hossain, Annam Venkatesh, Ashwani Kumar, Arkaj Kumar and Purnendu Bajpai.
