Summary
The Court restored a corruption trial interrupted by a successive discharge application challenging sanction after seventeen prosecution witnesses had testified. The accused had earlier declined to press his sanction objection and invited framing of charge. The High Court could not use Section 482 to bypass the statutory restrictions without finding actual failure of justice. Sanction validity remained open at final arguments.
Issues
- Whether a successive discharge application could interrupt the trial after an earlier sanction challenge was not pressed.
- Whether the High Court could reverse the Special Judge without finding failure of justice.
- When the accused could renew the sanction objection.
Provisions considered
- Section 19(1), (3) and (4), with explanation, Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988The Court distinguished the requirement of valid sanction at trial from restrictions on higher-court reversal, including actual failure of justice and the timing of objections. Competence of the sanctioning authority falls within the statutory concept of error. (¶¶ 7, 8, 10, 11, 12, 14, 15, 16)
- Sections 227 and 482, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973A repeated mid-trial discharge request and an inherent-power petition functioning as revision could not circumvent the special statutory restrictions in these circumstances. (¶¶ 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 14, 15, 16)
- Section 465, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973The comparable requirement of actual failure of justice reinforced the restriction against reversing proceedings for sanction defects alone. (¶¶ 9, 11, 12, 13, 14)
Held
- Valid sanction is a condition for cognizance of the specified corruption offences, and its validity should be challenged at the earliest opportunity. Section 19(3) restricts appellate, confirmatory and revisional interference rather than preventing the Special Judge from considering sanction validity. (¶¶ 8, 10, 11, 12)
- A higher court cannot reverse the Special Judge’s order for absence of or error in sanction without concluding that actual failure of justice occurred. The statutory error includes competence of the sanctioning authority, and the court must consider whether the objection could and should have been raised earlier. Neither pleading nor finding of failure of justice existed here. (¶¶ 8, 9, 11, 12, 13, 14)
- After the accused did not press his second discharge application, invited framing of charge and allowed seventeen witnesses to be examined, a third interlocutory discharge application could not scuttle the ongoing trial. Section 482 could not be used as a revisional route around Section 19(3). In this procedural situation, the accused could raise sanction validity at final arguments. (¶¶ 4, 5, 7, 14, 15, 16)
- The High Court’s discharge order was set aside and the trial was to resume from the stage at which it stopped, expeditiously and according to law. The accused retained liberty to argue sanction validity at the final stage; the Court did not finally foreclose that issue. (¶¶ 16, 17)
Result
Appeal allowed; High Court discharge order set aside. Special Judge to resume the trial expeditiously from the stopped stage, with sanction validity open to the accused at final arguments in accordance with law.