Mechanical sanction granted via pre-prepared draft without independent application of mind vitiates prosecution under Section 19.

The respondent, a Gram Sevak-cum-Secretary, was accused of demanding and accepting illegal gratification for releasing the second installment of a dwelling unit allotment under the Indira Awaas Yojana

A trap was organized by the Anti-Corruption Bureau on April 23, 2006, leading to the recovery of tainted currency

Following investigation and the procurement of a prosecution sanction, the respondent was charged under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act (PC Act), 1988

The trial court (Special Judge, PC Act Cases, Jodhpur) acquitted the respondent on March 26, 2012, primarily finding the prosecution sanction to be a mechanical exercise

The State appealed this acquittal

1. Whether the prosecution sanction granted under Section 19 of the PC Act was valid or a mere mechanical exercise devoid of independent application of mind

2. Whether the appellate court should interfere with the trial court’s judgment of acquittal given the evidence on record

The Court applied Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, which establishes previous sanction as a jurisdictional precondition for taking cognizance

It relied on State of Karnataka v. Ameerjan and Mohd. Iqbal Ahmad v. State of Andhra Pradesh to affirm that sanction requires a "conscious scrutiny" of material and "genuine satisfaction," rather than mechanical approval

the court applied the principles from Mallappa & Ors. v. State of Karnataka regarding appeals against acquittal, which mandate that if two views are possible, the view favoring the accused must prevail, and interference is only warranted in cases of manifest perversity or illegality

The Court observed that the sanction order (Exhibit P/9) was virtually identical to a draft proforma (Exhibit D/2) sent by the investigating agency to the sanctioning authority

The document retained the same punctuation, language, and textual composition as the template, indicating that the sanctioning authority merely affixed a signature without independent evaluation of the witness statements or facts

The Court reasoned that since a valid sanction is a "jurisdictional trigger," its absence or invalidity (due to lack of application of mind) renders the entire proceedings, from cognizance to trial, void ab initio

Furthermore, since the trial court’s appreciation of this documentary evidence was judicious and comprehensive, there was no manifest illegality to justify overturning the acquittal

The High Court dismissed the appeal and affirmed the judgment of acquittal dated March 26, 2012