Kiran Raj

The High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Nagpur Bench, has quashed the prosecution of a retired private school teacher charged under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, citing the absence of a valid sanction for prosecution. The court held that the Director of Education was not the competent authority to grant such sanction, rendering the entire prosecution process unlawful.

The revision application was filed by Sudhir Narayanrao Girde, a retired Assistant Teacher from Sant Vidyalaya, Mindala, challenging an order dated October 26, 2023, by the Additional Sessions Judge, Chandrapur, which rejected his application for discharge. The applicant was accused of abetting co-accused Ashok Narayan Khandale in allegedly demanding and accepting a bribe of Rs.3,50,000/- for regularizing the employment of complainant Dipak Natthuji Ambade from a non-grant to a grant-in-aid position. Following a trap operation by the Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB) on November 3, 2014, the co-accused was caught accepting the gratification, leading to charges under Sections 7, 12, 13(1)(d), 13(2), and 9 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

The applicant sought discharge under Section 239 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, arguing that no valid sanction had been obtained before the prosecution. He contended that the Director of Education, who granted the sanction on April 4, 2016, lacked the statutory authority to do so. Citing the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977 (MEPS Act), the applicant argued that only the management of the private school had the authority to remove an employee and, consequently, to grant prosecution sanction under Section 19(1)(c) of the Prevention of Corruption Act.

The court recorded that "the provisions of Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act require sanction to be accorded by an authority competent to remove the employee from his office." It noted that the MEPS Act vests the power of removal solely with the school management, not the Director of Education. The ruling stated that "the Director of Education, in view of Section 4(6) of the MEPS Act, is not the authority who can remove the applicant from employment."

The court referred to previous rulings, including Nanjappa vs. State of Karnataka (2015) 14 SCC 186, which held that an invalid sanction renders a prosecution unlawful. It further cited Madhuri Bharat Upadhey vs. State of Maharashtra (2024 SCC OnLine Bom 266) and Pranita Prakashrao Katewale vs. State of Maharashtra (2019 SCC OnLine Bom 1221), which established that the Director of Education cannot grant sanction under the Prevention of Corruption Act.

The judgment also examined Sau. Jyoti Ramesh Upase vs. State of Maharashtra, in which the Division Bench ruled that sanction must be granted by an authority with the power to remove an employee. It was noted that the MEPS Act explicitly defines the management as the competent authority, making the Director of Education’s sanction legally ineffective.

The court further examined State of Karnataka Lok Ayukta Police vs. Subbegowda (AIR 2023 SC 3770), in which the Supreme Court ruled that sanction-related errors cannot be overlooked when they affect the validity of the prosecution. The decision also referenced Prakash Singh Badal vs. State of Punjab (2007) 1 SCC 1, which reaffirmed that improper sanction vitiates criminal proceedings.

Further, in Central Bureau of Investigation vs. Jagat Ram (Criminal Appeal No. 4964/2024), the Supreme Court reiterated that procedural errors in sanctioning authority cannot be dismissed as mere technical lapses, as they form the foundation of the legal proceedings. The ruling reaffirmed that sanction is a jurisdictional prerequisite, and an invalid sanction affects the entire prosecution’s legality.

Additionally, in Nara Chandrababu Naidu vs. The State of Andhra Pradesh (Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 12289/2023), the court considered that procedural lapses, particularly concerning the sanctioning authority, could not be remedied at a later stage of the trial.

The High Court ruled that "the sanction accorded by the Director of Education based on the Government Resolution dated 05.11.2015 is invalid, and as a result, the prosecution of the applicant is rendered unlawful." The court stated that government resolutions cannot override statutory law, reaffirming the principle that statutory provisions take precedence over executive instructions. Consequently, the order of the Additional Sessions Judge, Chandrapur, was set aside, and the applicant was discharged from all charges.

Case Title: Sudhir s/o Narayanrao Girde v. State of Maharashtra
Case Number: Criminal Revision Application No. 98 of 2024
Bench: Justice Urmila Joshi-Phalke

[Read/Download order]