Bombay High Court Rules That Invalid Sanction Does Not Bar Prosecuting Public Servant After Valid Sanction

The Bombay High Court has ruled that if prosecution of a public servant under the Prevention of Corruption Act proceeds without valid sanction, leading to discharge, such a defense does not permanently bar a second trial once proper sanction is later obtained. The judgement arose from a challenge to a discharge order in a case involving allegations of bribery by a public official. The accused had been cleared on grounds that the sanctioning authority lacked competence, making the prosecution procedure legally flawed. However, the State challenged this outcome.

Justice Urmila Joshi Phalke observed that Section 19(1) of the Prevention of Corruption Act prohibits a court from taking cognizance of an offense alleged to have been committed by a public servant unless previous sanction has been granted by the competent authority. In this case, the sanction was issued by the Sub-Divisional Officer rather than the Collector, who holds statutory competence. This procedural flaw rendered the trial void ab initio, and the High Court upheld the discharge order delivered by the Additional Sessions Judge.

Importantly, the Court clarified that while a valid sanction is a mandatory prerequisite for lawful prosecution, invalid sanction denies procedural legitimacy only to the extent of the trial at the time. It does not authorize permanent immunity for the accused. Applying constitutional and statutory principles, the High Court affirmed that the State retains the power to initiate a fresh prosecution if a valid sanction is subsequently obtained from the appropriate authority—typically the Collector specifying departmental competence. The Court cited precedent affirming that invalid sanction should lead neither to acquittal nor to sanctifying impunity, but rather to lawful reinitiation once proper sanction is in place.

In its judgment, the Court further emphasized the severity of corruption charges and the importance of allowing the State to pursue valid proceedings rather than permitting technicalities to deny accountability. By distinguishing between procedural infirmity and substantive guilt, the High Court held that discharge triggered by invalid sanction doesn’t extinguish the State’s right to prosecution. Accordingly, it upheld the issuance of discharge without prejudice and allowed the possibility of renewed prosecution subject to valid sanction conferred in due course.

This decision aligns with the legal framework that sanctions under the Prevention of Corruption Act must be legally sound and authorized by competent administrative authority. At the same time, the ruling affirms that institutional safeguards against frivolous prosecutions must be balanced with the public interest in addressing alleged corruption.