The Supreme Court recently clarified that an irregularity in obtaining sanction to prosecute a public servant under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (“Act”) does not automatically result in acquittal, unless it is shown to have caused prejudice to the accused.
The bench, comprising Justices PS Narasimha and Manoj Misra, was hearing an appeal filed by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) challenging the Punjab & Haryana High Court's decision, which had overturned the conviction of a public servant. The High Court had cited procedural lapses by the CBI, particularly its failure to examine the official who granted the sanction for prosecution. The CBI argued that despite proving the demand and acceptance of a bribe by the public servant, and the defense failing to rebut the presumption under Section 20 of the Act, the High Court had overturned the conviction without determining whether the irregularity in the sanction caused any failure of justice.
In its judgment, authored by Justice Narasimha, the Court referred to Section 19(3)(a) of the Act, which stipulates that a court of appeal cannot reverse a finding, sentence, or order by a Special Judge on the grounds of absence, error, omission, or irregularity in the sanction. However, the Court noted that this restriction is subject to the court's opinion that such an error or irregularity resulted in a failure of justice. The Court drew on the decision in CBI v. Ashok Kumar Aggarwal (2014), which established that the plea of ‘failure of justice’ cannot be considered unless the accused demonstrates that the conviction has caused a detriment or disadvantage to the protections available under Indian criminal law.
“Really speaking, nothing remains for us to consider if absence, omission, error or irregularity of the sanction order has occasioned or resulted in failure of justice as the High Court came to the conclusion that findings of fact of the Trial Court, are based on evidence. The High Court also held that, 'the prosecution proved the demand and acceptance. The defence failed to rebut the prosecution evidence. Presumption arises under Section 20 of the Act regarding acceptance of money.”, the court observed.
The Supreme Court emphasized that since the High Court had already concluded that the findings of the trial court were based on evidence, and that the prosecution had proven the demand and acceptance of the bribe, there was no need to consider the issue of sanction irregularity unless it caused prejudice. The High Court had also acknowledged that the defense failed to rebut the prosecution's evidence, and a presumption arose under Section 20 of the Act regarding the acceptance of the bribe. However, as the High Court did not examine whether the irregularity in the sanction had caused failure of justice, the Court remanded the matter to the High Court to determine whether the irregularity, if any, resulted in prejudice to the public servant and affected the fairness of the proceedings.
In conclusion, the Supreme Court allowed the CBI’s appeal, set aside the High Court’s judgment, and directed the High Court to reconsider the legality of the sanction order under Section 19 of the Act, specifically assessing whether any irregularity resulted in a failure of justice.
Cause Title: CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION VS. JAGAT RAM
