Summary
The High Court accepted that demand and acceptance of the bribe were proved, but acquitted the accused only because no official who actually applied his mind to the sanction was examined. That was an error: under Section 19(3) and (4) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and Section 465 CrPC, a defect in sanction cannot overturn a Special Judge's finding unless it has caused a failure of justice. The acquittal was set aside and the sanction question remitted.
Issues
- Whether an appellate court can set aside a conviction under the Prevention of Corruption Act for a defect in proving or granting sanction without finding that the defect caused a failure of justice.
- How 'failure of justice' under Section 19(3)-(4) of the Act and Section 465 CrPC is to be assessed.
Provisions considered
- Section 19(1), (3) and (4), Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988Under Section 19(3)(a), no finding, sentence or order of a Special Judge is to be reversed on appeal for absence of, or error, omission or irregularity in, sanction unless a failure of justice has in fact occurred. Section 19(4) requires the court to consider whether the objection could and should have been raised earlier. The High Court had overlooked this restraint. (¶¶ 5, 6, 8, 10, 12, 15)
- Section 465, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973Section 465 likewise bars a court of appeal from reversing a finding or sentence of a competent court for any error or irregularity in sanction unless it caused a failure of justice, regard being had to whether the objection could have been raised earlier. The High Court lost sight of it. (¶¶ 9, 10)
- Sections 7, 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) and Section 20, Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988The accused was convicted of these offences after a trap. The High Court itself found demand and acceptance proved, the defence evidence insufficient in rebuttal, and the Section 20 presumption attracted. The Supreme Court confirmed these findings. (¶¶ 3, 4, 13, 15)
Held
- Section 19(3)(a) of the Act bars an appellate court from reversing a Special Judge's finding, sentence or order for absence of, or error, omission or irregularity in, the sanction. The bar gives way only where the court finds that a failure of justice has in fact occurred, and in judging that Section 19(4) requires it to consider whether the objection could and should have been raised earlier. (¶ 6)
- 'Failure of justice' must be read in light of why sanction is required at all: to filter out frivolous or motivated prosecutions of public servants. A mere error or irregularity in sanction is not fatal, and the accused must show real prejudice relating to the investigation or trial. Section 19 of the Act and Section 465 CrPC both strike this balance by asking whether a failure of justice has in fact been occasioned. (¶¶ 7, 8, 9, 10)
- The contrary view in State of Goa v. Babu Thomas was explained by the larger bench in State of M.P. v. Virender Kumar Tripathi, which affirmed that an error or irregularity in sanction does not vitiate proceedings without a finding of failure of justice. (¶¶ 11, 12)
- The High Court erred in acquitting the accused only because the official who applied his mind to the sanction was not examined, after itself holding that demand and acceptance were proved and that the Section 20 presumption arose. It did so without examining whether any failure of justice resulted. (¶¶ 4, 13)
- Since the High Court raised the sanction point on its own without hearing the accused, he was allowed, in the interest of justice, to contend before the High Court that the irregularity in sanction caused a failure of justice. (¶¶ 14, 15)
Result
Appeal allowed; the High Court judgment set aside to the extent it set aside the sanction and acquitted the respondent. The other findings were confirmed, and the matter was remitted to the High Court to decide whether any irregularity in the Section 19 sanction caused a failure of justice.