Summary
Although the State's appeal had become infructuous after the accused was acquitted, the Supreme Court examined and set aside guidelines framed by the High Court requiring trial courts in Prevention of Corruption Act cases to examine the sanctioning authority under Section 311 CrPC before framing charge, holding that a High Court under Article 226 cannot create a new stage of trial unknown to the CrPC.
Issues
- Whether the High Court, while dismissing a writ petition challenging sanction for prosecution, could direct trial courts in PC Act cases to examine the sanctioning authority under Section 311 CrPC before framing of charge and to discharge the accused if the sanction was found defective.
- Whether the appeal should be decided despite the acquittal of the accused rendering the challenge to the sanction infructuous.
Provisions considered
- Section 311, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973Section 311, a general provision in Chapter XXIV on inquiries and trials, lets the court summon or examine witnesses at any stage. The Court held that it cannot be read as a step in the conduct of trial that lets a court bypass the trial procedure in Chapters XV to XXI and examine the sanctioning authority before charge is framed. (¶¶ 4, 6, 7)
- Section 19, Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988The High Court's guidelines required trial courts to test the sanction under Section 19 by examining the sanctioning authority before charge and to discharge the accused if it was defective. The Supreme Court set those guidelines aside and held that trials under the PC Act must follow the procedure in the CrPC/BNSS read with the PC Act. (¶¶ 3, 7, 9)
- Article 226, Constitution of IndiaThe Court held that the writ jurisdiction does not empower a High Court to rewrite the CrPC by directing all Sessions/Special Courts to examine the sanctioning authority before framing charge or commencement of trial. (¶ 8)
Held
- Although the accused's acquittal had made the challenge to the sanction infructuous, the Court decided the question of the High Court's power to issue the general directions, given the State's grievance about their continuing effect on trials. (¶¶ 2, 10)
- The CrPC lays down a complete procedure for conducting trials in Chapters XV to XXI. Section 311 sits among the general provisions in Chapter XXIV and cannot be used to create a new procedure in which the sanctioning authority is examined before framing of charge; no such step exists in the Code, and a new stage of trial cannot be introduced by judicial fiat. (¶ 7)
- Trials for offences under the PC Act must be conducted as provided in the CrPC/BNSS read with the PC Act. (¶ 7)
- A High Court exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 cannot rewrite the CrPC and direct all Sessions/Special Courts under the PC Act to examine the sanctioning authority before charge or trial; the guidelines in paragraphs 32 and 33 of the impugned order were therefore set aside. (¶¶ 8, 9)
Result
Criminal Appeals 2191-2192 of 2025, though infructuous on the acquittal, allowed to the extent of setting aside paragraphs 32 and 33 of the High Court's order dated 08.05.2020; connected Criminal Appeals 2904-2905 of 2025 dismissed.