IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-11381-2016 (O&M)
Reserved on: 23.08.2023.
Pronounced on: 15.09.2023

Tulsi Ram Mishra … Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab and others … Respondents
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANUPINDER SINGH GREWAL

• PC ACT Sections 7 and 13(2) – Discharge of public servant for want of sanction In the event of discharge of a public servant for want of sanction or illegality of sanction, the matter ought not be closed but revived on the grant of sanction by the competent authority Prosecution in absence of sanction would be vitiated Public servant may take objections with regard to validity or absence of a valid sanction at cognizance stage but after the commencement of the trial he may take objections at the time of conclusion of the trial, but the trial shall not be scuttled in the midst This Court does not find any manifest illegality in the impugned order discharging respondent No.2 for the time being, but at the same time this Court deems it fit to direct the State of Punjab to forward all documents pertaining to the consideration for grant of sanction to prosecute respondent No.2 to the Central Government.

(c) Consequences of invalid sanction
18. Now, this Court would proceed to determine the consequencesof invalid sanction or sanction accorded by an incompetent authority. I would not accept the contention of counsel for the petitioner that the question of improper or invalid sanction could only be determined at the conclusion of the trial and the accused has to prove that the order had caused grave prejudice to him for the reason that this question is no longer res integra. The Supreme Court in the case of Nanjappa v. State of Karnataka (supra), after examining the provisions of Sections 19(1), 19(3) and 19(4) of the PC Act, had held that sub-sections (3) and (4) of Section 19 of the PC Act stipulate challenge to the validity of the order of sanction or validity of proceedings at the appellate or revisional stage before the higher court and
not before the Special Judge and that it does not forbid a Special Judge from passing an order of discharge if a valid order sanctioning prosecution is not produced in terms of Section 19 (1) of the PC Act. The relevant paragraphs
of the judgement are reproduced hereunder:-
“7. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties at considerable length. This appeal must, in our opinion, succeed on the short ground that in the absence of a valid previous sanction required under Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, the trial court was not competent to take cognizance of the offence
alleged against the appellant.

10. A plain reading of Section 19(1)(supra) leaves no manner of doubt that the same is couched in mandatory terms and forbids courts from taking cognizance of any offence punishable under Sections 7, 10, 11, 13 and 15
against public servants except with the previous sanction of the competent authority enumerated
in clauses (a), (b) and (c) to sub-section (1) of Section 19. The provision contained in subsection (1) would operate in absolute terms but for the presence of sub-section (3) to Section 19 to which we shall presently turn. But before we
do so, we wish to emphasise that the language employed in sub-section (1) of Section 19 admits of no equivocation and operates as a complete and absolute bar to any court taking cognizance of any offence punishable under Sections 7, 10, 11, 13 and 15 of the Act against a public servant except with the previous sanction of the competent authority.

ALL RIGHTS RESERVED (ADV VAIBHAV TOMAR)

FOR MORE CLICK HERE FOR READ THE JUDGMENT

CRM-M_11381_2016_15_09_2023_FINAL_ORDER Punjab & Haryana High Court