Holding

A conviction cannot be set aside for a sanction irregularity unless the court is satisfied that such irregularity has occasioned a failure of justice.

Summary

The CBI appealed a Punjab & Haryana High Court order that acquitted Jagat Ram, a public servant, on the ground that the sanction order authorising prosecution was not examined. The trial court had convicted him under Sections 7 and 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, based on evidence of a bribe demand and acceptance. The High Court upheld the conviction on evidential grounds but set aside the sanction, finding that the official who granted it was not examined, and consequently acquitted the accused. The Supreme Court examined Section 19 of the Act, which bars reversal of a special judge's order for sanction irregularities unless a failure of justice is shown, and reiterated that the court must consider whether the irregularity caused such failure. Finding that the High Court had not properly addressed the failure‑of‑justice test, the Supreme Court allowed the CBI's appeal, set aside the acquittal, and remanded the matter to the High Court to determine the legality of the sanction order.

Issues considered

Whether an irregularity or omission in the sanction order under Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, can be a ground for reversing a conviction.
Whether the High Court correctly applied the "failure of justice" test under Section 19(3)(a) and Section 19(4) of the Act.
Whether the objection to the sanction could and should have been raised at an earlier stage of the proceedings.

Legislation cited

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973s. 465
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988s. 13(1)(d), s. 13(2), s. 19, s. 19(3)(a), s. 19(4), s. 20, s. 7

Subjects

Sanction for prosecutionIrregularity in the sanction orderFailure of JusticePrevention of Corruption ActSection 19(3)(a)Section 465 CrPCConviction reversalPublic servant corruption

Judgment

[2024] 12 S.C.R. 533 : 2024 INSC 952

Central Bureau of Investigation
v.
Jagat Ram
(Criminal Appeal No(s). 4964 of 2024)
03 December 2024
[Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha* and Manoj Misra, JJ.]

Issue for Consideration
Respondent was convicted u/ss.7, 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2), Prevention
of Corruption Act, 1988 by the Trial Court. High Court acquitted
the respondent holding that the findings of the Trial Court were
based on evidence however, as regards the issue of sanction it
found that though the sanction order was proved but the official
who gave the sanction was not examined. Appeal by CBI. Whether
the irregularity of the sanction order, if any, has occasioned or
resulted in a failure of justice.

Headnotes†
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 – ss.19, 19(3)(a), (4) –
Previous sanction necessary for prosecution – “Failure of
Justice” – Respondent, if ought to be permitted to contest
the issue of failure of justice due to irregularity in sanction
before the High Court:
Held: Yes – Under s.19(3)(a), no finding, sentence or order by
a Special Judge shall be reversed by a court of appeal on the
ground of absence, error, omission or irregularity in the sanction –
However, such a restraint against reversal or alteration is subject
to the opinion of the court that failure of justice has in fact been
occasioned thereby – Further, s.19(4) provides that while construing
whether the absence, error, omission or irregularity has occasioned
or resulted in failure of justice, the court will examine the fact
that whether an objection could and should have been raised at
an earlier stage in the proceedings – High Court held that the
findings of fact of the Trial Court were based on evidence and the
prosecution proved the demand and acceptance which the defence
failed to rebut and thus, a presumption arose u/s.20 of the Act
regarding acceptance of money – High Court took up the issue
of sanction, rather than the proof of sanction on its own without
* Author
534 [2024] 12 S.C.R.

Digital Supreme Court Reports

the assistance of the counsel for the respondent – Judgment of
High Court set aside to the extent it set aside the sanction and
the consequent acquittal – Matter remanded to High Court for
considering the question of legality of the order of sanction u/s.19
to consider if the irregularity, if any, has occasioned or resulted in
a failure of justice – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.465.
[Paras 6, 14, 15]
Words and Phrases – “Failure of Justice” – Discussed.

Case Law Cited
C.B.I v. Ashok Kumar Aggarwal [2013] 14 SCR 983 : (2014) 14
SCC 295; State of Bihar v. Rajmangal Ram [2014] 4 SCR 602 :
2014 (11) SCC 388 – relied on.
State of Goa v. Babu Thomas [2005] Supp. 3 SCR 712 : (2005) 8
SCC 130; State of M.P. v. Virender Kumar Tripathi [2009] 7 SCR
89 : (2009) 15 SCC 533; Ashok Tshering Bhutia v. State of Sikkim
[2011] 3 SCR 242 : (2011) 4 SCC 402 – referred to.

List of Acts
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988; Code of Criminal Procedure,
1973.

List of Keywords
Sanction for prosecution; Irregularity in the sanction order; “Failure
of Justice”; Irregularity if occasioned or resulted in failure of justice;
Sanction order proved; Official not examined; Absence, error,
omission, irregularity; Question of legality of the order of sanction;
Restraint against reversal or alteration; Objection raised at an earlier
stage; Findings of fact based on evidence; Prosecution proved the
demand and acceptance; Defence failed to rebut; Acceptance of
money; Presumption; Proof of sanction; Without the assistance of
the counsel for the accused.

Case Arising From
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No.4964
of 2024
From the Judgment and Order dated 10.05.2017 of the High Court
of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh in CRAS No. 1192 of 2002
[2024] 12 S.C.R. 535

Central Bureau of Investigation v. Jagat Ram

Appearances for Parties
Rajkumar Bhaskar Thakare, A.S.G., Ms. Rukmini Bobde, Ms.
Prerna Kumari, Amish Agarwal, Arvind Kumar Sharma Mukesh
Kumar Maroria, Ms. Rukhmini Bobde, Chandra Prakash, Astha
Singh, Padmesh Mishra, Nitesh Shrivastava, Advs. for the Appellant.
Sangram S. Saron, Ms. Shubreet Kaur, Madhavrao B. Rajwade,
Nikhil Jain, Ms. Divya Jain, Advs. for the Respondent.

Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court

Judgment

Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha, J.

1. Delay Condoned. Leave granted.
2. The Central Bureau of Investigation is in appeal against the judgment
of Punjab and Haryana High Court allowing the criminal appeal1
filed by the accused under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 19882.
3. On the basis of F.I.R. on 02.12.1994, the C.B.I registered a case under
Sections 7, 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of the Act and a trap was arranged
leading to the respondent-accused getting caught demanding and
collecting a bribe as evidenced by a positive test for phenolphthalein
and sodium bicarbonate. After trial, the Special Judge, Chandigarh
convicted the accused under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of the
Act and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two
years and also imposed a fine of Rs.1000/-.
4. Having considered the evidence in detail, the High Court came to
the following conclusion:
“9. I agree with the findings of the fact which are based
on evidence and, therefore, I hold 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.”
However, the High Court then took up the issue of sanction and
found that though PW-9, M.S. Mahi Pal had proved the sanction

1 CRA-S-No. 1192-SB of 2002 dated 10.05.2017.
2 Hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’.
536 [2024] 12 S.C.R.

Digital Supreme Court Reports

order Exhibit PW-9/A, it came to the conclusion that the prosecution
had “not examined any official who had actually applied his/her mind
and given the sanction”. In this view of the matter, learned Judge
proceeded to acquit the accused.
5. Heard Ms. Rukhmini Bobde, learned counsel appearing on behalf of
the CBI and Mr. Sangram S. Saron, learned counsel appearing on
behalf of the respondent. For our analysis, Section 19 of the Act, to
the degree its relevant, is reproduced herein as follows:
“Sec. 19. Previous sanction necessary for prosecution.-
(1) No court shall take cognizance of an offence punishable
under Sections 7, 10, 11, 13 and 15 alleged to have been
committed by a public servant, except with the previous
sanction,-
[…]
(3) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974),
(a) no finding, sentence or order passed by a special
Judge shall be reversed or altered by a Court in appeal,
confirmation or revision on the ground of the absence of, or
any error, omission or irregularity in, the sanction required
under sub-section (1), unless in the opinion of that Court,
a failure of justice has in fact been occasioned thereby;
(b) no Court shall stay the proceedings under this Act
on the ground of any error, omission or irregularity in the
sanction granted by the authority, unless it is satisfied
that such error, omission or irregularity has resulted in a
failure of justice;
(c) no Court shall stay the proceedings under this Act on
any other ground and no Court shall exercise the powers
of revision in relation to any interlocutory order passed in
any inquiry, trial, appeal or other proceedings.
(4) In determining under sub-section (3) whether the
absence of, or any error, omission or irregularity in, such
sanction has occasioned or resulted in a failure of justice
[2024] 12 S.C.R. 537

Central Bureau of Investigation v. Jagat Ram

the court shall have regard to the fact whether the objection
could and should have been raised at any earlier stage
in the proceedings.”
6. It is clear that under sub-section 3(a) of Section 19 of the Act, no
finding, sentence or order by a Special Judge shall be reversed
by a court of appeal on the ground of absence, error, omission or
irregularity in the sanction. This is the first principle. However, such a
restraint against reversal or alteration is always subject to the opinion
of the court that failure of justice has in fact been occasioned thereby.
Sub-section (4) of Section 19 of the Act further provides that while
construing whether the absence, error, omission or irregularity has
occasioned or resulted in failure of justice, the court will examine the
fact that whether an objection could and should have been raised
at an earlier stage in the proceedings.
7. Failure of Justice, what it entails and the scope of such enquiry was
explained by this Court in C.B.I v. Ashok Kumar Aggarwal3 in the
following terms:
“18. ……The failure of justice would be relatable to error,
omission or irregularity in the grant of sanction. However,
a mere error, omission or irregularity in sanction is not
considered to be fatal unless it has resulted in the failure
of justice or has been occasioned thereby.
19. The court must examine whether the issue raised
regarding failure of justice is actually a failure of justice in
the true sense or whether it is only a camouflage argument.
The expression “failure of justice” is an extremely pliable
or facile an expression which can be made to fit into any
case. The court must endeavour to find out the truth. There
would be “failure of justice” not only by unjust conviction
but also by acquittal of the guilty as a result of unjust or
negligent failure to produce requisite evidence. Of course,

3 [2013] 14 SCR 983 : (2014) 14 SCC 295.
[Vide Nageshwar Shri Krishna Chobe v. State of Maharashtra [(1973) 4 SCC 23 : 1973 SCC (Cri) 664 :
AIR 1973 SC 165], Shamnsaheb M. Multtani v. State of Karnataka [(2001) 2 SCC 577 : 2001 SCC (Cri)
358], State v. T. Venkatesh Murthy [(2004) 7 SCC 763 : 2004 SCC (Cri) 2140], Rafiq Ahmad v. State of
U.P. [(2011) 8 SCC 300 : (2011) 3 SCC (Cri) 498], Rattiram v. State of M.P. [(2012) 4 SCC 516 : (2012) 2
SCC (Cri) 481], Bhimanna v. State of Karnataka [(2012) 9 SCC 650 : (2012) 3 SCC (Cri) 1210], Darbara
Singh v. State of Punjab [(2012) 10 SCC 476 : (2013) 1 SCC (Cri) 1037 : AIR 2013 SC 840] and Union of
India v. Ajeet Singh [(2013) 4 SCC 186 : (2013) 2 SCC (Cri) 347 : (2013) 2 SCC (L&S) 321]
538 [2024] 12 S.C.R.

Digital Supreme Court Reports

the rights of the accused have to be kept in mind and
safeguarded but they should not be overemphasised to
the extent of forgetting that the victims also have certain
rights. It has to be shown that the accused has suffered
some disability or detriment in the protections available to
him under the Indian criminal jurisprudence. “Prejudice”
is incapable of being interpreted in its generic sense and
applied to criminal jurisprudence. The plea of prejudice has
to be in relation to investigation or trial and not matters
falling beyond their scope. Once the accused is able to
show that there has been serious prejudice caused to
him with respect to either of these aspects, and that the
same has defeated the rights available to him under legal
jurisprudence, the accused can seek relief from the court.”
8. The meaning behind the text of the phrase ‘failure of justice’ must
be understood in the context of the object behind the larger public
policy on sanction for prosecution. The inter-relationship or the nexus
between the act complained of and the discharge of official duties
and the test to be applied has been explained in the decision of this
Court in State of Bihar v. Rajmangal Ram,4 where this Court held that:
“4. The object behind the requirement of grant of sanction
to prosecute a public servant need not detain the court
save and except to reiterate that the provisions in this
regard either under the Code of Criminal Procedure or
the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 are designed as a
check on frivolous, mischievous and unscrupulous attempts
to prosecute an honest public servant for acts arising
out of due discharge of duty and also to enable him to
efficiently perform the wide range of duties cast on him by
virtue of his office. The test, therefore, always is—whether
the act complained of has a reasonable connection with
the discharge of official duties by the government or the
public servant. If such connection exists and the discharge
or exercise of the governmental function is, prima facie,
founded on the bona fide judgment of the public servant,
the requirement of sanction will be insisted upon so as

4 [2014] 4 SCR 602 : (2014) 11 SCC 388
[2024] 12 S.C.R. 539

Central Bureau of Investigation v. Jagat Ram

to act as a filter to keep at bay any motivated, ill-founded
and frivolous prosecution against the public servant.
However, realising that the dividing line between an act in
the discharge of official duty and an act that is not, may,
at times, get blurred thereby enabling certain unjustified
claims to be raised also on behalf of the public servant so as
to derive undue advantage of the requirement of sanction,
specific provisions have been incorporated in Section 19(3)
of the Prevention of Corruption Act as well as in Section
465 of the Code of Criminal Procedure which, inter alia,
make it clear that any error, omission or irregularity in the
grant of sanction will not affect any finding, sentence or
order passed by a competent court unless in the opinion
of the court a failure of justice has been occasioned. This
is how the balance is sought to be struck.”
9. Apart from the clear statutory prescription of Section 19 of the Act,
as informed by relevant court precedents, the High Court has also
lost sight of Section 465 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 19735,
which provides that a sentence or an order passed by the court of
competent jurisdiction shall not be reversed or altered by a court of
appeal, confirmation or revision on account of any error or irregularity
in any sanction for the prosecution unless in the opinion of the court,
a failure of justice has in fact been occasioned thereby. Section 465
of the Cr.P.C is as under:
“Sec. 465 Finding or sentence when reversible by reason
of error, omission or irregularity:- (1) Subject to the
provisions hereinbefore contained, on finding, sentence or
order passed by a Court of competent jurisdiction shall be
reversed or altered by a Court of appeal, confirmation or
revision on account of any error, omission or irregularity
in the complaint, summons, warrant, proclamation, order,
judgment or other proceedings before or during trial or in
any inquiry or other proceedings under this Code, or any
error, or irregularity in any sanction for the prosecution
unless in the opinion of that Court, a failure of justice has
in fact been occasioned thereby.

5 Hereinafter referred to as ‘Cr.P.C’.
540 [2024] 12 S.C.R.

Digital Supreme Court Reports

(2) In determining whether any error, omission or
irregularity in any proceeding under this Code, or any
error, or irregularity in any sanction for the prosecution
has occasioned a failure of justice, the Court shall have
regard to the fact whether the objection could and should
have been raised at an earlier stage in the proceedings.”
10. The substantial principle of requiring a sanction for prosecution
and at the same time the principle in not negating the sentence or
order of a court of competent jurisdiction are both incorporated in
the Prevention of Corruption Act and the Criminal Procedure Code.
The Court balances these values by the measure of whether failure
of justice has in fact been occasioned.
11. Though a contrary view seems to have been taken in State of Goa
v. Babu Thomas,6 a larger bench of this Court in State of M.P. v.
Virender Kumar Tripathi7 has explained the position and affirmed the
principles as laid down in Ashok Tshering Bhutia v. State of Sikkim8.
12. Justice Gogoi, (as he then was) has explained this position in State
of Bihar (supra):
“6. In a situation where under both the enactments any
error, omission or irregularity in the sanction, which
would also include the competence of the authority to
grant sanction, does not vitiate the eventual conclusion
in the trial including the conviction and sentence, unless
of course a failure of justice has occurred, it is difficult to
see how at the intermediary stage a criminal prosecution
can be nullified or interdicted on account of any such
error, omission or irregularity in the sanction order without
arriving at the satisfaction that a failure of justice has also
been occasioned. This is what was decided by this Court
in State v. T. Venkatesh Murthy9 wherein it has been inter
alia observed that:

6 [2005] Supp. 3 SCR 712 : (2005) 8 SCC 130
7 [2009] 7 SCR 89 : (2009) 15 SCC 533
8 [2011] 3 SCR 242 : (2011) 4 SCC 402
9 [2004] Supp. 4 SCR 279 : (2004) 7 SCC 763 : 2004 SCC (Cri) 2140 paras 10 and 11, SCC p. 767,
para 14
[2024] 12 S.C.R. 541

Central Bureau of Investigation v. Jagat Ram

“14. … Merely because there is any omission,
error or irregularity in the matter of according
sanction, that does not affect the validity
of the proceeding unless the court records
the satisfaction that such error, omission or
irregularity has resulted in failure of justice.”
7. The above view also found reiteration in Parkash Singh
Badal v. State of Punjab [(2007) 1 SCC 1 : (2007) 1 SCC
(Cri) 193 (para 29)] wherein it was, inter alia, held that
mere omission, error or irregularity in sanction is not to be
considered fatal unless it has resulted in failure of justice.
In Parkash Singh Badal [(2007) 1 SCC 1 : (2007) 1 SCC
(Cri) 193 (para 29)] it was further held that Section 19(1)
of the PC Act is a matter of procedure and does not go
to the root of jurisdiction. On the same line is the decision
of this Court in R. Venkatkrishnan v. CBI [(2009) 11 SCC
737 : (2010) 1 SCC (Cri) 164] . In fact, a three-Judge
Bench in State of M.P. v. Virender Kumar Tripathi [(2009)
15 SCC 533 : (2010) 2 SCC (Cri) 667] while considering
an identical issue, namely, the validity of the grant of
sanction by the Additional Secretary of the Department of
Law and Legislative Affairs of the Government of Madhya
Pradesh instead of the authority in the parent department,
this Court held that in view of Section 19(3) of the PC Act,
interdicting a criminal proceeding mid-course on ground
of invalidity of the sanction order will not be appropriate
unless the court can also reach the conclusion that failure
of justice had been occasioned by any such error, omission
or irregularity in the sanction. It was further held that failure
of justice can be established not at the stage of framing
of charge but only after the trial has commenced and the
evidence is led (para 10 of the report).
8. There is a contrary view of this Court in State of Goa
v. Babu Thomas [(2005) 8 SCC 130 : 2005 SCC (Cri)
1995] holding that an error in grant of sanction goes to the
root of the prosecution. But the decision in Babu Thomas
[(2005) 8 SCC 130 : 2005 SCC (Cri) 1995] has to be
necessarily understood in the facts thereof, namely, that
the authority itself had admitted the invalidity of the initial
sanction by issuing a second sanction with retrospective
542 [2024] 12 S.C.R.

Digital Supreme Court Reports

effect to validate the cognizance already taken on the basis
of the initial sanction order. Even otherwise, the position
has been clarified by the larger Bench in State of M.P. v.
Virender Kumar Tripathi [(2009) 15 SCC 533 : (2010) 2
SCC (Cri) 667].”
13. 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’. We have already extracted the relevant portion of the
High Court judgment.
14. Mr. Sangram S. Saron, learned counsel has submitted that one
more opportunity may be given to the respondent to demonstrate
that ‘irregularity in the sanction order has led to failure of justice’. It
appears that the High Court has taken up the issue of sanction, rather
than the proof of sanction on its own and without the assistance of
the learned counsel for the respondent-accused. In the circumstances
and in the interest of justice, even if it is a formality we consider it
appropriate to permit the respondent to raise and contest this issue of
failure of justice due to irregularity in sanction before the High Court.
15. For the reasons stated above, we allow the appeal and set aside the
judgment and order dated 10.05.2017 in CRA-S-No. 1192-SB of 2002
by the High Court to the extent that it set aside the sanction and the
consequent acquittal. While we confirm the other findings, we remand
the matter to the High Court for considering the question of legality
of the order of sanction under Section 19 of the Act to consider if the
irregularity, if any, has occasioned or resulted in a failure of justice.
16. The Criminal Appeal is disposed of in above terms.
17. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.

Result of the case: Appeal allowed.

†
Headnotes prepared by: Divya Pandey