THE STATE OF PUNJABversusHARI KESH

           [2025] 1 S.C.R. 651 : 2025 INSC 50

                    The State of Punjab
                             v.
                        Hari Kesh
              (Criminal Appeal No. 104 of 2025)
                        07 January 2025
    [Bela M. Trivedi and Prasanna B. Varale, JJ.]


                    Issue for Consideration
Whether the High Court was justified in quashing the Sanction
Order and setting aside the proceedings arising therefrom, thereby
allowing the petition filed by the accused.

                           Headnotes†
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Whether High Court was
correct in quashing the sanction order when the trial had
already commenced and the prosecution had already examined
seven witnesses – Correctness:
Held: The petition for quashing of Sanction Order was filed
by the respondent after the trial court framed the charge and
commenced the trial, rather after the prosecution examined five
witnesses – While deciding the issue, The Hon’ble Supreme Court
placed heavy reliance on State of Karnataka, Lokayukta Police
Versus S. Subbegowda (2023 SCC Online SC 911), where the
Hon’ble Apex Court dealt with ss.19(3) and 19(4) of Prevention of
Corruption Act, 1988 and held, sanction order passed by special
judge shall not be interfered with, by the Court in appeal or
revision on the ground of the absence of, or any error, omission
or irregularity in the sanction, unless the said Court in appeal or
revision finds that failure of justice has occurred while passing
impugned order — The High Court failed to record any opinion
as to how a failure of justice had in fact on account of error if
any, occurred in granting the sanction by the authority – As per
the Explanation to sub-section (4), of Section 19, error includes
“competency of the authority to grant Sanction” – The Sanction,
in question, has been granted by the competent authority or not,
would be a matter of evidence to be proved by the prosecution
during the course of trial – The High Court committed gross error
in quashing the Sanction Order and the consequent proceedings
652                                                          [2025] 1 S.C.R.

                           Supreme Court Reports


       as the High Court failed to record any opinion as to how a failure
       of justice had occasioned, thus the order passed by High Court
       is set aside. [Paras 7, 8, 9]

                               Case Law Cited
       State of Karnataka, Lokayukta Police v. S. Subbegowda [2023] 11
       SCR 19 : 2023 SCC Online SC 911 – relied upon.

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

                              List of Keywords
       Grant of Sanction under Prevention of Corruption Act; Competency
       to grant Sanction; Failure of justice.

                             Case Arising From
       CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No.
       104 of 2025
       From the Judgment and Order dated 20.05.2019 of the High
       Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh in CRM-M No. 11994
       of 2019

                          Appearances for Parties
       Vivek Jain, D.A.G., Karan Sharma, Advs. for the Appellant.
       Vivek Gupta, Ankit Verma, Advs. for the Respondent.

                  Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court

                                  Judgment

1.     Leave granted.
2.     The present appeal, filed by the appellant-State of Punjab, is
       directed against the impugned judgment and order dated 20.05.2019,
       passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in
       CRM-M No. 11994 of 2019 (O&M), whereby the said petition, filed
       by the respondent-accused seeking quashing of Sanction Order
       dated 19.11.2018, in the case arising out of F.I.R. No. 02 dated
[2025] 1 S.C.R.                                                           653

                     The State of Punjab v. Hari Kesh


     10.01.2024, registered at Police Station-Vigilance Bureau, Patiala
     Range, Patiala for the offence punishable under Sections 7 and
     13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short “the Act”),
     has been allowed and the consequent proceedings arising therefrom
     have been set aside.
3.   Heard learned counsels for the parties.
4.   It is sought to be submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant-
     State of Punjab that the High Court had passed the impugned
     order when the trial had already commenced and the prosecution
     had already examined seven witnesses. Learned counsel places
     heavy reliance on the decision of this Court in the case of State of
     Karnataka, Lokayukta Police Versus S. Subbegowda (2023 SCC
     Online SC 911), to submit that the High Court has committed an error
     in quashing the Sanction Order and setting aside the proceedings
     arising therefrom when the trial has already commenced.
5.   However, the learned counsel for the respondent-accused submits that
     the High Court has rightly quashed the proceedings considering the
     fact that earlier, Sanction sought was not granted by the competent
     authority and now, the impugned Sanction Order has been passed by
     an officer who was not competent to grant the Sanction to prosecute
     the respondent-accused.
6.   The short question that arises for determination of this Court is
     whether the High Court could have set aside the impugned Sanction
     Order and the proceedings arising therefrom, more particularly, when
     the trial had already commenced and the prosecution had examined
     seven witnesses.
7.   In our opinion, the judgment in the case of S. Subbegowda (supra)
     clinches the issue, in which, this Court in the similar facts and
     circumstances, after considering the provisions contained in Section
     19 of the Act, has held as under: -
           “11. The combined reading of sub-section (3) and (4) of
           Section 19 makes it clear that notwithstanding anything
           contained in the Code, no finding, sentence or order
           passed by the 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
654                                                    [2025] 1 S.C.R.

                     Supreme Court Reports


       the sanction required under sub-section (1), unless in the
       opinion of the Court, a failure of justice has in fact been
       occasioned thereby. sub-section (4) further postulates that
       in determining under subsection (3) whether the absence
       of, or any error, omission or irregularity in the sanction
       has occasioned, or resulted in 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. The explanation to sub-section (4) further
       provides that for the purpose of Section 19, error includes
       “competency of the authority to grant sanction”. Thus, it
       is clear from the language employed in sub-section (3)
       of Section 19 that the said sub-section has application to
       the proceedings before the Court in appeal, confirmation
       or revision, and not to the proceedings before the Special
       Judge. The said sub-section (3) clearly forbids the court
       in appeal, confirmation or revision, the interference with
       the order passed by the Special Judge on the ground that
       the sanction was bad, save and except in cases where
       the appellate or revisional court finds that the failure of
       justice had occurred by such invalidity.”
       12. & 13……………………………
       14. In the instant case, the Special Judge proceeded with
       the trial, on the second application for discharge filed by
       the respondent having not been pressed for by him. The
       Special Judge, while dismissing the third application filed
       by the respondent seeking discharge after examination
       of 17 witnesses by the prosecution, specifically held that
       the sanction accorded by the government which was a
       superior authority to the Karnataka Water Supply Board,
       of which the respondent was an employee, was proper
       and valid. Such findings recorded by the Special Judge
       could not have been and should not have been reversed
       or altered by the High Court in the petition filed by the
       respondent challenging the said order of the Special Judge,
       in view of the specific bar contained in sub-section (3) of
       Section 19, and that too without recording any opinion
       as to how a failure of justice had in fact been occasioned
[2025] 1 S.C.R.                                                           655

                     The State of Punjab v. Hari Kesh


           to the respondent-accused as contemplated in the said
           sub-section (3). As a matter of fact, neither the respondent
           had pleaded nor the High Court opined whether any failure
           of justice had occasioned to the respondent, on account
           of error if any, occurred in granting the sanction by the
           authority.
8.   In the instant case, it appears that the petition for quashing of Sanction
     Order was filed by the respondent after the trial court framed the
     charge and commenced the trial, rather after the prosecution examined
     five witnesses. It is pertinent to note that whether the Sanction has
     been granted by the competent authority or not, would be a matter of
     evidence. Further, as per the Explanation to sub-section (4), for the
     purpose of Section 19, error includes “competency of the authority
     to grant Sanction.” Therefore, in view of the settled legal position,
     the High Court should not have quashed the Sanction Order and the
     consequent proceedings, unless it was satisfied that the failure of
     justice had occurred by such error or irregularity or invalidity. There
     is not a whisper in the impugned order about any failure of justice
     having occurred on account of the impugned Sanction Order. The
     High Court also should not have entertained the petition for quashing
     the Sanction Order when the prosecution had already examined
     seven witnesses.
9.   In that view of the matter, we are of the opinion that the High Court
     has committed gross error in quashing the Sanction Order and the
     consequent proceedings vide the impugned order.
10. The impugned judgment and order dated 20.05.2019, passed by the
    High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in CRM-M No.
    11994 of 2019 (O&M), is therefore set aside. The proceedings arising
    out of the case being PC-15/2018, are restored on file before the
    Special Court-Sangrur and they shall be proceeded further from the
    stage at which the proceedings were stopped, in accordance with law.
11. As stated earlier, whether the Sanction Order was passed by the
    competent authority or not, would be a matter of evidence to be
    proved by the prosecution during the course of trial.
12. We clarify that we have not expressed any opinion on the merits of
    the case and the respondent-accused shall be at liberty to raise all
656                                                               [2025] 1 S.C.R.

                              Supreme Court Reports


       contentions as may be legally permissible with regard to Sanction
       during the course of the trial.
13. The Appeal is allowed accordingly.
14. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand closed.

       Result of the case: Appeal allowed.



       †
           Headnotes prepared by: Gaurav Upadhyay, Hony. Associate Editor
                                   (Verified by: Liz Mathew, Sr. Adv.)