Kiran Raj

The Supreme Court of India Division Bench of Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice Sandeep Mehta declined to interfere with the framing of charges against a public servant in a corruption case, holding that the question of sanction under Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, for offences under the Indian Penal Code can be examined at any stage of the proceedings. The Bench recorded that the issue depends on the nature of evidence presented to determine whether the alleged acts were committed in discharge of official duty, while proceedings under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, will continue without challenge.

The matter arose from criminal proceedings initiated against a public servant, Ram Sagar, in connection with allegations of conspiracy, criminal breach of trust, falsification of accounts, and cheating under Sections 120B, 409, 477A, and 420 of the Indian Penal Code. In addition to these provisions, charges were also framed under Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

Also Read: Supreme Court | Verified Homebuyer Claims Under IBC Must Be Honoured in Full | Possession Cannot Be Denied Once Admitted by Resolution Professional

The High Court of Uttarakhand at Nainital, by judgment dated 25 January 2021, rejected two criminal revisions filed by the accused challenging the framing of charges. The High Court noted that while the accused did not dispute the charges under the Prevention of Corruption Act, objections were raised against the IPC charges on the ground of absence of prior sanction under Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

The accused contended that departmental sanction was mandatory before prosecuting a public servant for offences under the IPC, and in the absence of such sanction, the trial could not proceed. His position was that only the charges under the Prevention of Corruption Act could stand, as no sanction was required under that statute.

The Central Bureau of Investigation, representing the prosecution, opposed the revisions, submitting that the question of sanction was not one that invalidated the framing of charges. Instead, the issue was dependent on facts and evidence to be considered at the trial stage. The High Court agreed with this submission and rejected the revisions.

The matter reached the Supreme Court, where the petitioner, represented by senior counsel, reiterated that sanction was indispensable for IPC offences. Reliance was placed on earlier directions of the Court which had remanded the case to the High Court for examining the sufficiency of materials in the charge-sheet. The petitioner maintained that without sanction, the IPC charges were unsustainable. The respondent, through counsel for the CBI, repeated its position that sanction questions could be determined by the trial court in due course.

The Court stated: “The stance of the petitioner before the High Court was that he had nothing to say in so far as framing of charge under the provisions of P.C. Act, 1988 is concerned. However, according to him, charge could not have been framed for the offences punishable under the IPC for want of Sanction under Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, ‘the CrPC’).”

The Court observed: “We are of the view that the issue of sanction under Section 197 CrPC can be taken up before the Trial Court at any stage of the proceedings. It would all depend on the nature of the evidence that the prosecution may lead in the course of the trial.”

Also Read: Delhi High Court | SFIO Probe Under Section 212(1)(c) Companies Act Quashed | Investigation Order Vitiated by Non-Existent Grounds and Misreading of Audit Reports

Addressing the High Court’s earlier observations, the Bench noted: “Learned counsel for the revisionist would submit that since the prosecution did not obtain the sanction from the department to prosecute the revisionist in respect of offences punishable under the Penal Code, as required under Section 197 of Cr.P.C., thus the trial cannot proceed in respect of charges under IPC.”

“We need not interfere with the common impugned order passed by the High Court at this stage. It shall be open for the petitioner to apply with the trial court under Sections 205 and 317 of Cr.PC respectively (Sections 228 and 355 of the Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023) seeking exemption from personal attendance before the Trial Court.”

“With the aforesaid, the Special Leave Petitions stand disposed of. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.”

Advocates Representing the Parties

For the Petitioners: Mr. K. Parameshwar, Senior Advocate; Mr. Kaushik Kumar Dey, Advocate; Mr. Amit Singh, Advocate; Ms. Shilpi Dey Aditya, Advocate; Ms. Sania Sharfuddin, Advocate; Ms. Shehla Chaudhary, Advocate; Mr. Md. Anas Chaudhary, Advocate; Mr. Mohd. Sharyab Ali, Advocate; Mr. Ansar Ahmad Chaudhary, AOR; Ms. Kavya Dixit, Advocate.

For the Respondents: Ms. Shagun Thakur, Advocate; Mr. Mukesh Kumar Maroria, AOR; Mr. Shlok Chandra, Advocate; Mr. Udai Khanna, Advocate; Mr. T.S. Sabarish, Advocate; Mr. Sachin Sharma, Advocate; Mrs. Rita Gupta, Advocate; Mr. Arvind Kumar Sharma, AOR.

Case Title: Ram Sagar v. Central Bureau of Investigation
Case Number: SLP (Crl.) Nos. 2671/2021 and 2729/2021
Bench: Justice J.B. Pardiwala, Justice Sandeep Mehta