THE STATE OF PUNJABversusPARTAP SINGH VERKA

                  [2024] 7 S.C.R. 62 : 2024 INSC 483

                           The State of Punjab
                                    v.
                           Partap Singh Verka
                    (Criminal Appeal No. 1943 of 2024)
                                 08 July 2024
           [Sudhanshu Dhulia* and Prasanna B. Varale, JJ.]

                           Issue for Consideration
       Correctness of the order passed by the High Court setting aside
       the order of the trial court which had summoned respondent u/s
       319 CrPC to face the trial for the offences u/s. 7/13(2) of the
       Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, as sanction u/s. 19 of the
       P.C. Act was not sought.

                                  Headnotes†
       Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 – s. 19 – Previous sanction
       necessary for prosecution – On facts, the trial court summoned
       the respondent-public servant u/s 319 CrPC to face the trial
       for the offences u/s. 7/13(2) of the P C Act – High Court set
       aside the order of the trial court as sanction u/s. 19 was not
       sought – Correctness:
       Held: Respondent is a ‘Public Servant’ as defined u/s. 2(c) of the
       P.C Act – Words and phrases used in s. 19(1) of the P.C Act itself
       make it evident that the provision is mandatory in nature – Courts
       cannot take cognizance against any public servant for offences
       committed u/ss. 7, 11, 13 and 15 of the P.C. Act, even on an
       application u/s. 319 CrPC, without first following the requirements
       of s. 19 – On facts, the correct procedure should have been for
       the prosecution to obtain sanction u/s. 19 from the appropriate
       Government, before formally moving an application before the
       Court u/s. 319 CrPC – In fact, the trial court too should have
       insisted on the prior sanction, which it did not – In absence of the
       sanction the entire procedure remains flawed – Thus, the impugned
       order passed by the High Court does not call for interference – ss.
       7, 11, 13 and 15 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s. 319.
       [Paras 7, 10, 11]



* Author
[2024] 7 S.C.R.                                                        63

                The State of Punjab v. Partap Singh Verka


                            Case Law Cited
     Dilawar Singh v. Parvinder Singh [2005] Supp. 5 SCR 83 : (2005)
     12 SCC 709; Paul Varghese v. State of Kerala [2007] 4 SCR 1155 :
     (2007) 14 SCC 783; Surinderjit Singh Mand v. State of Punjab
     [2016] 5 SCR 653 : (2016) 8 SCC 722 – referred to.

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

                            List of Keywords
     Previous sanction; Public servant; Mandatory in nature.

                           Case Arising From

     CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No.1943
     of 2024
     From the Judgment and Order dated 02.08.2018 of the High Court of
     Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh in CRR No. 2317 of 2017

                        Appearances for Parties

     Vivek Jain, D.A.G., Ms. Nupur Kumar, Abhinav Jain, Advs. for the
     Appellant.
     R.P. Nagrath, Sr. Adv., Manuj Nagrath, Raktim Gogoi, Kartikeya
     Singh, Shivam Sharma, S Vinod, Advs. for the Respondent.

                Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court

                               Judgment
     Sudhanshu Dhulia, J.
1.   The State of Punjab is in appeal here against the judgment and
     order dated 02.08.2018, passed by the High Court of Punjab and
     Haryana setting aside the order dated 20.05.2017 of the Trial
     Court which had summoned respondent Pratap Singh Verka under
     Section 319 of Criminal Procedure Code (hereinafter referred to
     as ‘CrPC’) to face the trial for the offences under sections 7/13(2)
     of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to
     as ‘P.C Act’).
64                                                          [2024] 7 S.C.R.

                      Digital Supreme Court Reports


2.    Brief facts of the case are that on 25.04.2016, an FIR u/s 7/13 (2)
      of the P.C Act was lodged against Respondent- Dr. Partap Singh
      Verka and another co-accused i.e. ‘Vikas’, at Police Station Vigilance
      Bureau, Amritsar. It was disclosed in the FIR that the present
      respondent was working as a doctor in Guru Nanak Hospital at the
      relevant point of time when complainant-Gurwinder Singh sought
      treatment for his brother who was in jail. The complainant alleged
      that on 20.04.2016 the Respondent took a bribe of Rs.10,000
      from the complainant through the accused-Vikas for admitting the
      complainant’s brother in his hospital, as he was otherwise reluctant
      to treat a prisoner. Again on 24.04.2016, the respondent demanded
      another Rs.10,000/- to keep the patient in the hospital for further
      treatment and asked the complainant to give that amount to the
      other accused i.e. ‘Vikas’ in two installments of Rs.5,000 each.
      The complainant, however, contacted the Vigilance Bureau instead
      and the officials of Vigilance laid a trap to catch the culprits. On
      25.04.2016, the accused-Vikas (ward attendant) was caught red-
      handed in the parking lot of the hospital receiving Rs.5000 from the
      complainant. On the same day, the respondent was also arrested
      from his office.
3.    In May 2016, both the accused were released on bail. A chargesheet
      dated 22.12.2016 was later filed only against the other accused-
      Vikas. The present respondent was not named in the charge-sheet
      as an accused.
4.    However, during the course of the trial, the complainant-Gurwinder
      Singh deposed as PW-1 on 12.05.2017 and in his examination-
      in-chief, he said that it was the present Respondent who had
      demanded the bribe and it was on his behalf that the other accused,
      Vikas had received the bribe amount. The trial Court deferred the
      hearing on the request of the Public Prosecutor of the State who
      then wanted to move an application under Section 319 of the CrPC
      for summoning the respondent as an accused. Consequently, an
      application was moved by the State on 18.05.2017 under Section
      319 CrPC, which was allowed on 20.05.2017 and Dr. Partap Singh
      Verka was summoned to face the trial.
5.    The accused Respondent challenged this order of the Trial Court
      before the High Court which has set aside the order of the Trial Court,
      as sanction under Section 19 of the P.C Act had not been taken.
[2024] 7 S.C.R.                                                        65

                The State of Punjab v. Partap Singh Verka


6.   We have heard the counsel for the Appellant-State as well as for
     the Respondent and have also perused the material before us.
7.   There is no dispute on the fact that the Respondent is a ‘Public
     Servant’ as defined under Section 2(c) of the P.C Act. Section 19 of
     the P.C Act puts a bar on Courts to take cognizance of an offence
     under Sections 7, 11, 13 and 15, without the previous sanction
     of the State Government, Central Government or the competent
     authority, as the case may be. The relevant portion of Section 19
     of the P.C Act is as follows:
           “19. Previous sanction necessary for prosecution.—(1)
           No court shall take cognizance of an offence punishable
           under sections 7, 11, 13 and 15 alleged to have been
           committed by a public servant, except with the previous
           sanction save as otherwise provided in the Lokpal and
           Lokayuktas Act, 2013 (1 of 2014)—
           (a) in the case of a person who is employed, or as the
           case may be, was at the time of commission of the
           alleged offence employed in connection with the affairs
           of the Union and is not removable from his office save
           by or with the sanction of the Central Government, of
           that Government;
           (b) in the case of a person who is employed, or as the
           case may be, was at the time of commission of the alleged
           offence employed in connection with the affairs of a State
           and is not removable from his office save by or with the
           sanction of the State Government, of that Government;
           (c) in the case of any other person, of the authority
           competent to remove him from his office.”
8.   While allowing the Section 319 (CrPC) application moved by the
     Public Prosecutor, the Trial Court did not consider the question of
     sanction. Before this Court the stand of the State of Punjab is that
     there was no need for this sanction as cognizance was taken in
     the Court itself under Section 319 of the CrPC.
     In Dilawar Singh v. Parvinder Singh, [(2005) 12 SCC 709], this
     Court while explaining the provisions of Section 19 of the P.C Act
     and also the provisions under Section 319 Cr.PC., said as under:
66                                                           [2024] 7 S.C.R.

                      Digital Supreme Court Reports


           “This section creates a complete bar on the power of
           the court to 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 of the competent authority enumerated
           in clauses (a) to (c) of this sub-section. If the sub-section
           is read as a whole, it will clearly show that the sanction for
           prosecution has to be granted with respect to a specific
           accused and only after sanction has been granted that
           the court gets the competence to take cognizance of an
           offence punishable under Sections 7, 10, 11, 13 and 15
           alleged to have been committed by such public servant…”
                                                               (para 4)
      Further, in regard to the relation between Section 19 of P.C Act and
      the provisions of cognizance under CrPC, this Court laid down the
      law in the following words:
           “…….the provisions of Section 19 of the Act will have an
           overriding effect over the general provisions contained in
           Section 190 or 319 CrPC. A Special Judge while trying
           an offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988,
           cannot summon another person and proceed against him
           in the purported exercise of power under Section 319
           CrPC if no sanction has been granted by the appropriate
           authority for prosecution of such a person as the existence
           of a sanction is sine qua non for taking cognizance of the
           offence qua that person.”                         (para 8)
9.    In Paul Varghese v. State of Kerala, (2007) 14 SCC 783, this Court
      again reiterated this provision and held:
           “As has been rightly held by the High Court in view of
           what has been stated in Dilawar Singh case [(2005) 12
           SCC 709 : (2006) 1 SCC (Cri) 727] the trial court was
           not justified in holding that Section 319 of the Code has
           to get preference/primacy over Section 19 of the Act, and
           that matter stands concluded.”                   (para 4)
10. The words and phrases used in Section 19(1) of the P.C Act itself
    make it evident that the provision is mandatory in nature. In Surinderjit
    Singh Mand v. State of Punjab (2016) 8 SCC 722, although this
[2024] 7 S.C.R.                                                         67

                The State of Punjab v. Partap Singh Verka


     court was dealing with the issue of sanction under Section 197 of
     CrPC but while doing so it referred to various judgments including
     the two cases discussed above and emphasized the provision of
     prior sanction:
           “The law declared by this Court emerging from the
           judgments referred to hereinabove, leaves no room for any
           doubt that under Section 197 of the Code and/or sanction
           mandated under a special statute (as postulated under
           Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act) would
           be a necessary prerequisite before a court of competent
           jurisdiction takes cognizance of an offence (whether under
           the Penal Code, or under the special statutory enactment
           concerned). The procedure for obtaining sanction would
           be governed by the provisions of the Code and/or as
           mandated under the special enactment. The words
           engaged in Section 197 of the Code are,
           “… no court shall take cognizance of such offence except
           with previous sanction…”.
           Likewise sub-section (1) of Section 19 of the Prevention
           of Corruption Act provides—
           “19. Previous sanction necessary for prosecution.—(1) No
           court shall take cognizance … except with the previous
           sanction ….”
           The mandate is clear and unambiguous that a court “shall
           not” take cognizance without sanction. The same needs
           no further elaboration. Therefore, a court just cannot take
           cognizance without sanction by the appropriate authority.
           Thus viewed, we find no merit in the second contention
           advanced at the hands of the learned counsel for the
           respondents that where cognizance is taken under Section
           319 of the Code, sanction either under Section 197 of
           the Code (or under the special enactment concerned) is
           not a mandatory prerequisite.”
11. It is a well settled position of law that courts cannot take cognizance
    against any public servant for offences committed under Sections
    7,11,13 & 15 of the P.C. Act, even on an application under section
    319 of the CrPC, without first following the requirements of Section
68                                                         [2024] 7 S.C.R.

                          Digital Supreme Court Reports


      19 of the P.C Act. Here, the correct procedure should have been
      for the prosecution to obtain sanction under Section 19 of the P.C
      Act from the appropriate Government, before formally moving an
      application before the Court under Section 319 of CrPC. In fact, the
      Trial Court too should have insisted on the prior sanction, which it
      did not. In absence of the sanction the entire procedure remains
      flawed. We are completely in agreement by the decision of the High
      Court and therefore are not inclined to interfere with the impugned
      order passed by the High Court and accordingly this appeal is hereby
      dismissed.
      Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.

      Result of the case: Appeal dismissed.



      †
          Headnotes prepared by: Nidhi Jain