Validity of prosecution sanction cannot be raised as a ground in a renewed discharge application.

The petitioner was facing prosecution under Section 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, in Special (PC) Case No. 2/2013. After his discharge application was dismissed, he sought to challenge the charge sheet and the dismissal order by writ petition. He contended that the prosecution lacked a valid sanction and had wrongly excluded ₹67,31,099, which he claimed derived from his mother and came to him after her death; excluding that amount, he argued, would remove the alleged excess assets.

The State opposed the petition, arguing that sanction validity could be considered at trial and that the treatment of the claimed funds was also a matter for trial.

Whether the alleged defect in sanction justified quashing the prosecution or could be raised in the renewed discharge proceedings.

Whether the Trial Judge’s treatment of the claimed ₹67,31,099 justified setting aside the order dismissing discharge.

Section 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act concerns possession of assets disproportionate to known sources of income; the Court noted that the treatment of the claimed funds had to be assessed in light of the provision’s wording and explanation.

On sanction, the Court relied on State represented by Deputy Superintendent of Police, Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Chennai City-I Department v. G. Easwaran, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 643, for the principle that sanction validity may be examined during trial, and considered the submission based on State of Karnataka v. S. Subbegowda, (2023) 17 SCC 699, as quoted in Meenakshi Khare v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2026 SCC OnLine MP 467, that a sanction objection should be raised at the earliest stage but may be considered at specified later stages, subject to Section 19(3) and (4) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. The Court concluded that sanction validity could not be pursued as a ground in the renewed discharge hearing.

The Court declined to quash the charge sheet on the sanction ground, holding that sanction validity was for consideration during trial and could, if appropriate, be addressed as a preliminary issue.

It separately found that the Trial Judge’s reasons concerning the ₹67,31,099 could not be sustained in law, having regard to the nature of the offence under Section 13(1)(e). It therefore set aside the order dismissing discharge and remitted the matter for fresh consideration, while excluding the sanction objection from that renewed discharge hearing.

The petitioner could not raise sanction validity as a ground in the renewed discharge hearing.