Cognizance of a Prevention of Corruption Act offence without prior sanction is legally impermissible.

The petitioner, an Assistant Engineer in the Road Construction Department, Government of Bihar, was prosecuted in Vigilance P.S. Case No. 1 of 2015 for alleged offences under Sections 13(2) read with 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

The prosecution alleged that, during his service from 13 December 2007 onwards, he accumulated movable and immovable assets in his own name and in the names of his wife and children disproportionate to his known sources of income.

His assessed salary income was approximately ₹36,00,000, expenditure was ₹17,03,405, and likely savings were ₹18,96,595, whereas the value of the alleged assets and investments was approximately ₹2,77,79,000.

The Special Judge, Vigilance, Patna took cognizance on 26 June 2019 in Special Case No. 33 of 2015.

The petitioner challenged the cognizance order under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, principally on the ground that cognizance was taken without prior sanction under Section 19(1) of the Prevention of Corruption Act.

Whether the Special Court could validly take cognizance of the alleged offences under Sections 13(2) read with 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act against the petitioner, a public servant, in the absence of prior sanction under Section 19(1) of the Act?

Whether the cognizance order and consequential criminal proceedings were liable to be quashed under the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C.?

The Court applied Section 19(1) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, as amended by the Prevention of Corruption (Amendment) Act, 2018, which prohibits a court from taking cognizance of offences punishable under Sections 7, 11, 13 and 15 against a public servant without previous sanction from the competent Government or authority.

The Court relied on Shivendra Nath Verma v. Union of India, order dated 22 July 2024, wherein the Supreme Court held that cognizance taken in the absence of the sanction mandated by Section 19(1) was legally unsustainable, although a sanction obtained subsequently was not thereby rendered void.

The Court also referred to State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335, particularly Category 6 of the illustrative principles, under which proceedings may be quashed where an express statutory bar operates against their institution or continuance.

The petitioner’s challenge was confined to the absence of sanction prior to the cognizance order.

Since the prosecution concerned offences under Section 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act and the petitioner was a public servant employed in connection with the affairs of the State, Section 19(1)(b) required previous sanction from the State Government before cognizance could be taken.

The Court noted that the Vigilance Department did not dispute the absence of sanction and relied on the Supreme Court’s decision in Shivendra Nath Verma, which treated cognizance taken without the statutory sanction as legally impermissible.

Applying the statutory bar under Section 19(1) and the Bhajan Lal principle concerning proceedings instituted in violation of an express legal bar, the Court held that the cognizance order dated 26 June 2019 could not be sustained.

Accordingly, the cognizance order dated 26 June 2019 in Special Case No. 33 of 2015, together with all consequential proceedings against the petitioner, was quashed and set aside.

The application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. was allowed, and the Trial Court Records were directed to be returned to the trial court.