Sanction under Section 17-A PC Act is not required for public servants arrested during trap proceedings.

The applicants were accused in a bribe case involving the appointment of a GDS Assistant Branch Post Master.

On 03.02.2025, a complaint was filed alleging that Brikesh Pandey and one Ramesh Kumar demanded ₹25,000 for joining formalities

During a CBI trap on 04.02.2025, Achche Lal allegedly accepted the bribe on the instructions of Ramesh Kumar, while Brikesh Pandey was present on the spot

Charges were framed under Section 61(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) and Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption (PC) Act

The applicants challenged the trial court’s rejection of their discharge applications

the validity of the prosecution sanction orders dated 30.07.2025, arguing the sanction was issued "mechanically" because Section 19 of the PC Act does not explicitly mention granting sanction for BNS offences

1. Whether a prosecution sanction order is invalidated by the inclusion of an offence under the BNS alongside the PC Act under Section 19 of the PC Act

2. Whether the validity and legality of a prosecution sanction can be challenged at the pre-trial/discharge stage or must be addressed during the trial

3. Whether previous sanction for prosecution is mandatory under Section 17-A of the PC Act when an accused is arrested on the spot during a trap

The court applied Section 19 and Section 17-A of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988

The court relied on the Full Bench decision in Neera Yadav v. C.B.I., which held that sanction under Section 19 is sufficient for both corruption and conspiracy charges

The court followed the doctrine from Parkash Singh Badal v. State of Punjab, Dinesh Kumar v. Airport Authority of India, and CBI v. Ashok Kumar Aggarwal, establishing that while the "absence" of sanction is a threshold issue, the "validity/legality" of a sanction is a matter for trial.

Furthermore, it applied the first proviso to Section 17-A of the PC Act as interpreted in CBI v. Santosh Karnani, which stipulates that no prior approval is required for cases involving on-the-spot arrests for accepting undue advantage

The court reasoned that since the applicants reached the stage of challenging the "validity" of the sanction (due to alleged "non-application of mind" regarding the BNS sections) rather than its "absence," the matter must be decided during the trial rather than at the discharge stage

Regarding the BNS offence, the court noted that Section 61(2) BNS (conspiracy) is equivalent to the erstwhile Section 120-B IPC; thus, as per Neera Yadav, a sanction under Section 19 PC Act suffices

Significantly, the court observed that since the applicants were caught and arrested on the spot during a trap, the first proviso to Section 17-A of the PC Act applies, rendering any requirement for prior prosecution sanction unnecessary for the initiation of proceedings

Therefore, defects in the sanction order, even if they existed, would not vitiate the proceedings

no prior sanction was required in this specific trap case involving on-the-spot arrests

The court upheld the trial court's orders dated 30.01.2026 and 21.02.2026, finding no illegality in the rejection of the discharge applications or the framing of charges. The applications were dismissed