Summary
The Supreme Court held that the High Court erred in quashing a sanction order under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 after the trial had begun and prosecution witnesses had been examined, without any finding that the alleged defect in sanction had caused a failure of justice; whether the sanctioning officer was competent is a matter of evidence at trial.
Issues
- Whether the High Court could quash the sanction order to prosecute under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, and the proceedings founded on it, after charge was framed and the prosecution had examined witnesses.
- Whether a challenge to the competence of the sanctioning authority can succeed at that stage without a finding of failure of justice.
Provisions considered
- Section 19(3) and (4), with the Explanation to sub-section (4), Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988Relying on State of Karnataka, Lokayukta Police v. S. Subbegowda, the Court read sub-sections (3) and (4) as barring a court in appeal, confirmation or revision from reversing proceedings for absence of, or error or irregularity in, sanction unless a failure of justice has in fact occurred, regard being had to whether the objection could have been raised earlier; the Explanation makes 'error' include the competency of the sanctioning authority. (¶¶ 7, 8)
- Sections 7 and 13(2), Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988The offences for which the FIR was registered and the sanction to prosecute the respondent was granted. (¶ 2)
Held
- Under Section 19(3) and (4) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, a superior court should not set aside a sanction order and the consequent proceedings on the ground of error or irregularity in the sanction, including the competence of the sanctioning authority, unless it is satisfied that a failure of justice has in fact been occasioned; the High Court's order contained no reference at all to any failure of justice. (¶¶ 7, 8)
- The High Court should not have entertained a petition to quash the sanction order when it was filed after the charge was framed and the trial had commenced, and when by the time of decision the prosecution had already examined seven witnesses. (¶¶ 6, 8, 9)
- Whether the sanction was granted by the competent authority is a matter of evidence for the prosecution to prove at trial, and the accused remains free to raise all legally permissible contentions about the sanction during the trial. (¶¶ 8, 11, 12)
Result
Appeal allowed; the High Court's order dated 20.05.2019 set aside; proceedings in case PC-15/2018 restored before the Special Court, Sangrur, to continue from the stage where they stopped; no opinion expressed on merits.