Supreme Court of India
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESHversusRAVI SHANKAR SINGH & ORS.
- Citation
- 2026 INSC 650
- Decided
- 10 June 2026
- Disposal
- Appeal(s) allowed
Holding
The High Court cannot, under Article 226, rewrite the CrPC to mandate examination of the sanctioning authority before charge‑framing; such directions are ultra vires.
Summary
The State of Madhya Pradesh appealed against directions issued by the Madhya Pradesh High Court that trial courts, while trying cases under the Prevention of Corruption Act, must examine the sanctioning authority under Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure before charge‑framing, even when the accused does not challenge the sanction. The accused, Ravi Shankar Singh, had already been acquitted of offences under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of the PC Act, rendering the question of the sanction's validity moot, but the State sought relief from the High Court's procedural directives. The Supreme Court examined whether a High Court, exercising its jurisdiction under Article 226, can rewrite the CrPC to create a new pre‑charge stage of scrutiny of the sanctioning authority. It held that Section 311 is a general provision applicable during an inquiry or trial and cannot be read into a step before charge‑framing; the High Court therefore lacks authority to impose such a requirement. Consequently, the Court set aside the High Court’s directions and allowed the appeal to the extent of striking down paragraphs 32 and 33 of the impugned order, while dismissing the remaining appeals.
Issues considered
- Whether the High Court, under Article 226, can direct trial courts to examine the sanctioning authority under Section 311 CrPC before charge‑framing in cases under the Prevention of Corruption Act, even in the absence of a challenge by the accused.
Legislation cited
- Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973s. 311, s. 397, s. 401, s. 482
- Constitution of India
- Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988s. 13(1)(d), s. 13(2), s. 19, s. 7
Headnote
Issue for Consideration Issue arose as regards the power and jurisdiction of the High Court to issue the directions that trial court while trying a case under the Prevention of Corruption Act to examine the sanctioning authority exercising powers u/s.311 CrPC before framing is no challenge to the same by the accused. Headnotes† Constitution of India – Art. 226 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.311 – Power and jurisdiction of the High Court – Writ Petition sought quashing of the sanction for prosecution granted by the
Subjects
Power and jurisdiction of the High CourtSanctioning authority exercising powers under s.311 CrPC before framing chargeQuashing of the sanction for prosecutionValidity of the sanctionDirections and guidelines issued by the High CourtPrevention of Corruption ActCriminal Procedure
Judgment
[2026] 7 S.C.R. 297 : 2026 INSC 650
The State of Madhya Pradesh
v.
Ravi Shankar Singh & Ors.
(Criminal Appeal No(s). 2191-2192 of 2025)
10 June 2026
[Prashant Kumar Mishra and Atul S. Chandurkar, JJ.]
Issue for Consideration
Issue arose as regards the power and jurisdiction of the High Court
to issue the directions that trial court while trying a case under the
Prevention of Corruption Act to examine the sanctioning authority
exercising powers u/s.311 CrPC before framing charge, even if
there is no challenge to the same by the accused.
Headnotes†
Constitution of India – Art. 226 – Code of Criminal Procedure,
1973 – s.311 – Power and jurisdiction of the High Court – Writ
Petition sought quashing of the sanction for prosecution
granted by the Competent Authority under the 1988 Act
against the first respondent – High Court while dismissing the
petition, issued certain directions that trial court while trying
a case under the Prevention of Corruption Act to examine
the sanctioning authority exercising powers u/s.311 before
framing charge, even if there is no challenge to the same by
the accused – First respondent acquitted of the charges for
committing the offences u/ss.7, 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of the PC
Act and, thus, the issue regarding validity of the sanction
become infructuous – Directions and guidelines issued by the
High Court, if would create difficulties in perpetuity affecting
all criminal trials:
Held: High Court in exercise of its jurisdiction u/Art.226 cannot
re-write the CrPC and direct all the Sessions Courts/Special Courts
under the PC Act to examine the sanctioning authority even before
framing of charge or commencement of trial – Stage of s.311 CrPC
occurs under Chapter XXIV regarding general provisions as to
inquiries and trials and these provisions cannot be read into a step
in conduct of trial so as to clothe a criminal court with jurisdiction to
bye-pass the procedure provided for conduct of trial and evolve a
new procedure and methodology for conducting trial by examining
298 [2026] 7 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
the sanctioning authority even before framing of charge – There is
no such procedure provided in the CrPC where such step can be
made permissible – New stage for trial cannot be introduced by
a judicial fiat – Trial in a criminal case including in offences under
the PC Act has to be conducted in the manner provided for in the
Cr.PC/Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita read with the provisions
contained in the PC Act – Guidelines and directions issued by
the High Court in the impugned order set aside – Prevention of
Corruption Act, 1988 – ss.7, 13(1)(d) and 13(2). [Paras 7-10]
List of Acts
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988; Code of Criminal Procedure,
1973; Constitution of India; Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita,
2023.
List of Keywords
Power and jurisdiction of the High Court; Sanctioning authority
exercising powers u/s.311 CrPC before framing charge; Quashing
of the sanction for prosecution granted by the Competent Authority;
Validity of the sanction; Directions and guidelines issued by the
High Court.
Case Arising From
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No(s).
2191-2192 of 2025
From the Judgment and Order dated 02.11.2020 and 08.05.2020
of the High Court of M.P Principal Seat at Jabalpur in RP No. 1010
of 2020 and WP No. 19792 of 2019, respectively
With
Criminal Appeal No(s). 2904-2905 of 2025
Appearances for Parties
Advs. for the Appellant(s):
Rajeev Singh, Naveen Kumar Singh, Nishant Ramakantrao
Katneshwarkar.
Advs. for the Respondent(s):
Nishant Ramakantrao Katneshwarkar, Amalpushp Shroti, Naveen
Kumar.
[2026] 7 S.C.R. 299
The State of Madhya Pradesh v. Ravi Shankar Singh & Ors.
Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court
Order
Criminal Appeal No(s). 2191-2192/2025
1. These Appeals are directed against the orders passed by the High
Court in the Writ Petition as well as in the Review Petition. While
dismissing the Writ Petition seeking quashing of the sanction
for prosecution granted by the Competent Authority under the
Prevention of Corruption Act, 19881 against the first respondent-
Ravi Shankar Singh, the High Court has issued certain directions
as contained in paragraphs 32 and 33 of the impugned order dated
08.05.2020.
2. Admittedly, the first respondent-accused has been acquitted of the
charges for committing the offences under Sections 7, 13(1)(d)
and 13(2) of the PC Act and, thus, the issue regarding validity of
the sanction has become infructuous. However, the appellant-State
is mainly aggrieved by certain directions which the High Court
has issued in paragraphs 32 and 33 of the impugned order dated
08.05.2020. Therefore, in the peculiar facts of the case, we have
proceeded to decide the issue concerning the High Court’s power
and jurisdiction to issue the nature of directions as contained in
paragraphs 32 and 33 of the impugned order.
3. The High Court vide impugned order dated 08.05.2020 has issued
the following directions:
“32. In our considered opinion, the advantage of recording
the evidence of the Sanctioning Authority U/S 311 CRPC,
before framing of charge, are as follows.
(a) The Court saves precious time if the evidence of
the Sanctioning Authority reveals that the Sanction
is bad either on account of it being passed by an
incompetent authority or passed without application
of mind which case, the accused can be discharged
and the charge-sheet returned to the investigating
agency.
1 For short, “the PC Act”
300 [2026] 7 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
(b) The investigating agency has the opportunity of
seeking fresh sanction and refiling the chargesheet
before the Trial Court.
(c) The accused does not get the benefit of autrefois
acquit/convict as charge has not been framed, and
(d) The accused cannot get the benefit of a seeking
quashment of the case on the ground of delayed trial,
which he may otherwise get if he is discharged by the
Trial Court at the end of the trial after a protracted
trial spanning over a decade.
33.(sic) In view of what we have discussed and held
hereinabove; we propose to lay down the following
guidelines to be followed by the learned trial court while
trying a case under the Prevention of Corruption Act.
(a) The trial court shall examine the sanctioning
authority exercising powers under section 311 CRPC
before framing charge, even if there is no challenge
to the same by the accused, as the validity of the
sanction order can to to the root of the case and
can render the very act of taking cognizance itself
void ab initio.
(b) If the trial court finds that the sanction passed in
consonance with the provisions of section 19 of the
PC Act on both the parameters of competence of the
sanctioning authority and application of mind on the
part of the sanctioning authority, then the trial court
shall proceed to the next stage and decide whether
charges should be framed against the accused after
hearing the prosecution and the defence.
(c) If the trial court is of the opinion that the sanction
order under section 19 of the PC Act is fundamentally
defective on either of the parameters, it shall
discharge the accused and return the chargesheet
to the investigating agency, which shall be at liberty
to file the chargesheet once again after seeking a
fresh sanction under section 19 of the PC Act.
[2026] 7 S.C.R. 301
The State of Madhya Pradesh v. Ravi Shankar Singh & Ors.
(d) These directions are prospective in nature and
shall not affect the proceedings in those cases where
the charges have been framed and evidence has
commenced before the trial court. It goes without
saying that these directions shall have no effect on
the inherent powers of the High Court under section
482 CRPC or its powers of revision under section
397 with 401 CRPC.”
4. Learned counsel for the appellant-State would submit that although
upon acquittal of the first respondent-accused, the present Criminal
Appeals have abated; however, the directions and guidelines issued
in paragraphs 32 and 33 by the High Court, as quoted above, will
create difficulties in perpetuity affecting all criminal trials not only under
PC Act but also in other serious offences. It is also argued that the
appellant-State moved the High Court by preferring a Review Petition
which also stands dismissed vide order dated 02.11.2020 in R.P. No.
1010/2020. It is further submitted that the High Court has wrongly
read and interpreted the provisions contained in Section 311 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure, 19732 for issuing the directions as if the
Court may examine a witness at any stage of the proceeding i.e., to
say even immediately after filing of the charge-sheet.
5. Mr. Naveen Kumar, learned counsel appearing for appellant-Kamta
Prasad in Criminal Appeal Nos. 2904-2905 of 2025 would support
the order/directions/guidelines issued by the High Court.
6. Learned counsel for the respondent(s) would submit that the
provisions contained in Section 311 of the Cr.PC itself provides
that the Court can exercise the power at any stage of any inquiry
or trial or other proceedings under the Cr.PC, therefore, issuance
of directions in consonance with the language of Section 311 Cr.PC
is fully justified.
7. The Cr.PC prescribes and provides for a complete procedure as to
the manner in which all kinds of trial will be conducted. They are
provided in Chapters XV to XXI. Thus, the stage of Section 311 of
the Cr.PC occurs under Chapter XXIV regarding general provisions
as to inquiries and trials. These general provisions cannot be read
2 For short, “the Cr.PC”
302 [2026] 7 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
into a step in conduct of trial so as to clothe a criminal court with
jurisdiction to bye-pass the procedure provided for conduct of trial
and evolve a new procedure and methodology for conducting trial by
examining the sanctioning authority even before framing of charge.
There is no such procedure provided in the Cr.PC where such step
can be made permissible. We are afraid, a new stage for trial cannot
be introduced by a judicial fiat. Trial in a criminal case including
in offences under the PC Act has to be conducted in the manner
provided for in the Cr.PC/ Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita read
with the provisions contained in the PC Act.
8. The High Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of
the Constitution of India cannot re-write the Cr.PC and direct all the
Sessions Courts/Special Courts under the PC Act to examine the
sanctioning authority even before framing of charge or commencement
of trial.
9. In the above view of the matter, we set aside the guidelines and
directions issued by the High Court in paragraphs 32 and 33 of the
impugned order dated 08.05.2020.
10. The Appeal, though infructuous upon acquittal of the accused, is
allowed to the above extent in respect of paragraphs 32 and 33 of
the impugned order dated 08.05.2020, by setting aside the same.
11. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
Criminal Appeal No(s). 2904-2905/2025
1. In view of the order passed in Criminal Appeal No(s).
2191-2192/2025, these Appeals also stand dismissed.
2. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
Result of the case: Criminal Appeal No(s). 2191-2192/2025 allowed.
Criminal Appeal No(s). 2904-2905/2025
dismissed.
†
Headnotes prepared by: Nidhi Jain
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.
Try "Power and jurisdiction of the High Court"Sign in to search