PC Act | Sections 19(3) & (4) Apply Only In Appeals After Cognizance, Not When Sanction Is Questioned At Trial : Supreme Court
Kiran Raj
The Supreme Court of India Division Bench of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta, in a corruption case against a senior motor vehicle inspector, remitted the matter to the trial court to decide whether the sanction for prosecution was issued by the competent appointing authority and to proceed with the trial only if that sanction is valid, otherwise to return the chargesheet for fresh sanction. The case concerns an alleged demand and acceptance of Rs 15,000 as illegal gratification through a private intermediary, and the Court held that departmental exoneration did not warrant discharge while clarifying that the safeguards in Sections 19(3) and 19(4) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, which turn on “failure of justice”, apply only when a conviction is examined in appeal or revision after cognizance, not when sanction is questioned at trial.
The case concerns an accused-appellant who was working as a Senior Inspector of Motor Vehicles at the RTO office, K.R. Puram, Bengaluru, when a trap was arranged by the Lokayukta Inspector with two independent government servants as witnesses. During pre-trap proceedings, Rs 15,000 was entrusted to the complainant to be paid upon demand, and the accused was allegedly trapped while demanding and accepting this amount through a private co-accused. The trap led to registration of a crime under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, and sanction for prosecution was granted by the Commissioner of Transport for offences under Sections 7, 8, 13(1)(d) read with 13(2), followed by filing of a chargesheet.
The accused-appellant then sought discharge under Sections 227 and 239 CrPC, contending that sanction could be granted only by the State Government as his appointing authority, and that his exoneration in departmental proceedings on the same charges rendered the criminal prosecution unjustified. The trial court accepted the challenge to sanction, held that the Commissioner was not the competent authority, discharged both accused, and returned the chargesheet with liberty to obtain fresh sanction. Both the State and the accused filed revision petitions; the High Court allowed the State’s petition, dismissed the accused’s, held the sanction competent by reference to a 2010 notification, and directed the trial to proceed. In parallel, a departmental enquiry concluded that the charge was not established and recorded findings that the disciplinary authority had not proved the allegations against the delinquent employee.
The Court examined the departmental enquiry report and recorded that upon perusal of the above report, it is evident that the disciplinary authority’s discretion was swayed by the fact that the Sri K.R. Manjunath (complainant), Sri Nagesh (shadow witness), and Sri Maruthiraj (colleague of the complainant) did not support the department’s case and feigned ignorance about the transaction of bribe. It further noted that the order of the disciplinary authority also takes note of the fact that Sri Sanjeevarappa (Investigating Officer) fully supported the case of the department and proved the trap panchnama, as per which the tainted currency notes were recovered from the hands of Paramesh @ Mastigowda (accused No. 2), and the allegation of demand of a bribe was proved against the accused-appellant. We feel that the conclusion drawn by the disciplinary authority that guilt of the delinquent employee could not be proved merely on the testimony of the trap laying officer, is premature and unfounded.
On hostile witnesses in trap cases, the Court observed that this Court has, in a catena of decisions, held that the mere fact that a decoy/complainant in a trap case turns hostile would not adversely affect the case of prosecution and that conviction can be based even on the evidence of the trap laying officer, if found reliable and trustworthy. It added that we may further observe that when a witness deposing on oath in a criminal trial resiles from the original version and does not support the prosecution case, he would be liable to face prosecution for perjury. Under this pressure, the witness may choose to speak the truth.
On the effect of departmental exoneration and the scope of Section 19 PC Act, the Court stated that in the present case, as is evident, the exoneration of the accused-appellant in the departmental proceedings is merely on the ground that the decoy and associating witnesses did not support the case of department and that exoneration in the departmental proceedings does not, ipso facto, furnish a ground for dropping the criminal charges more particularly in Trap Cases. It further held that the Explanation to Section 19(4) would become relevant and come into play only when the question of validity or otherwise of the sanction is under scrutiny before the appellate or the revisional forum as provided in sub-Section (3) of Section 19 and that, in this factual background, the Explanation below Section 19(4) is not germane to the controversy.
The Court directed: “In view of this disputed factual scenario, we are of the considered opinion that, for a proper and effective resolution of the controversy, it would be expedient in the interest of justice to remit the matter to the trial Court for fresh adjudication on the limited issue regarding the actual appointing authority of the accused-appellant and the consequential bearing thereof on the validity of the sanction order.”
“The contention advanced on behalf of the accused-appellant that he is entitled to be discharged on account of his exoneration in the departmental proceedings does not merit acceptance and is, accordingly, rejected.”
“The finding recorded by the High Court on the aspect of the validity of the sanction is set aside, and the matter is remitted to the trial Court for fresh determination of the issue of sanction in accordance with law, keeping in view the above observations.”
“For this purpose, the trial Court shall be at liberty to summon the original records/contemporaneous documents pertaining to appointment of the accused-appellant, and thereafter to take an appropriate decision regarding the validity or otherwise of the sanction, in accordance with law. In case the trial Court finds that the sanction has been issued by a competent authority, the trial shall proceed. However, in case the conclusion is otherwise, the trial Court shall return the chargesheet to the investigating agency for procuring fresh sanction from the appropriate authority.”
“The appeals are disposed of in these terms. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.”
Advocates Representing the Parties:
For the Petitioners: Mr. Devadatt Kamat, Sr. Adv. Mr. Hruday Bajentri, Adv. Mr. Sahil Raveen, AOR
For the Respondents: Mr. Aman Panwar, A.A.G. Mr. Naveen Sharma, AOR Mrs. Swati Bhushan Sharma, Adv. Mr. S.k. Sharma, Adv. Mr. Abhinav Kumar, Adv. Mr. Manav Kaushik, Adv.
Case Title: T. Manjunath v. The State of Karnataka and Anr.
Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 1356
Case Number: Criminal Appeal No(s). of 2025 (Arising out of SLP(Crl.) No(s). 11160-11161 of 2024)
Bench: Justice Vikram Nath, Justice Sandeep Mehta
