Cognizance against retired public officials under the PC Act requires prior sanction.

The petitioners challenged the trial court’s order dated 9 April 2025 issuing summons in Special C.C. No. 137 of 2020.

The prosecution alleged offences under Sections 120B, 409, 465, 468 and 477A of the IPC and Sections 13(1)(c), 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (“PC Act”)

In earlier revision proceedings, a coordinate Bench had remitted matters for fresh consideration and directed that, absent the required sanction, proceedings could not continue against the relevant accused

The trial court nevertheless restored the case and issued summons to accused Nos. 1 to 7; the State confirmed that no fresh sanction had been obtained

The charge sheet was filed on 21 January 2020 and cognizance was taken on 10 February 2020, both after the amendment to Section 19(1) of the PC Act came into force on 26 July 2018

The petition against petitioner No. 1 had abated; the Court considered the challenge concerning the issuance of summons to accused Nos. 5 and 6

1. Whether the trial court could issue summons to accused Nos. 5 and 6 without obtaining the sanction required under the amended Section 19(1) of the PC Act, where cognizance was taken after the amendment came into force

2. Whether the summons were consistent with the coordinate Bench’s remand directions, which precluded proceedings against the relevant accused in the absence of sanction

Section 19(1) of the PC Act, as amended with effect from 26 July 2018, requires sanction for the court to take cognizance of an offence under the Act against a public servant, including a retired public servant, in cases where cognizance has not already been taken.

The Court relied on a coordinate Bench decision concerning the application of the amendment and on the coordinate Bench’s earlier remand directions, which stated that proceedings could not continue against the relevant accused if the required sanction was absent

The revision was brought under Sections 438 and 442 of the BNSS, corresponding to Sections 397 and 401 of the CrPC

Because the charge sheet was filed and cognizance taken after the amendment to Section 19(1) came into force, the Court held that the amended sanction requirement applied to the proceedings

No sanction had been obtained, as the State’s counsel fairly conceded

The trial court’s restoration of the case and issuance of summons to accused Nos. 5 and 6 therefore contravened both the statutory requirement and the earlier remand directions