A) ABSTRACT / HEADNOTE

This judgment concerns the requirement of prior sanction under Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 before initiating prosecution against a public servant. The Supreme Court examined the correctness of the High Court’s decision to set aside a trial court’s order summoning the respondent under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) to face trial for alleged offenses under Sections 7 and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. The Court ruled that the trial court erred in taking cognizance without obtaining the mandatory prior sanction under Section 19 of the Act.

Keywords: Prevention of Corruption Act, prior sanction, public servant, mandatory provision, cognizance.

B) CASE DETAILS

i) Judgement Cause Title:
The State of Punjab v. Partap Singh Verka

ii) Case Number:
Criminal Appeal No. 1943 of 2024

iii) Judgement Date:
08 July 2024

iv) Court:
Supreme Court of India

v) Quorum:
Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia and Justice Prasanna B. Varale

vi) Author:
Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia

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

viii) Legal Provisions Involved:

• Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988: Sections 2(c), 7, 13(2), 19
• Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: Section 319

ix) Judgments Overruled by the Case (if any):
None

x) Case is Related to:
Criminal Law, Anti-Corruption Law

C) INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND OF JUDGMENT

The case stemmed from allegations of corruption against a public servant, Dr. Partap Singh Verka, and another individual. A First Information Report (FIR) was filed under Sections 7 and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. The respondent, though not initially named in the charge sheet, was later summoned under Section 319 CrPC based on new evidence. The High Court quashed this order, citing the absence of prior sanction under Section 19 of the Act, prompting the State of Punjab to appeal to the Supreme Court.

D) FACTS OF THE CASE

1. An FIR was registered on April 25, 2016, against Dr. Partap Singh Verka and another accused, Vikas, under Sections 7 and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act.
2. The complaint alleged that the respondent demanded and accepted bribes for admitting a prisoner to the hospital and extending his treatment.
3. A trap was set by the Vigilance Bureau, leading to the arrest of Vikas and subsequently the respondent.
4. The charge sheet dated December 22, 2016, named only Vikas as an accused. The respondent was not included.
5. During trial proceedings, the complainant’s testimony implicated the respondent, prompting the State to file a Section 319 CrPC application to summon the respondent.
6. The trial court allowed this application, but the High Court quashed the order, citing the lack of mandatory prior sanction under Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act.

E) LEGAL ISSUES RAISED

1. Whether prior sanction under Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, is mandatory before taking cognizance of offenses against a public servant.
2. Whether the provisions of Section 319 CrPC can override the mandatory requirements of Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act.

F) PETITIONER/APPELLANT’S ARGUMENTS

1. The State argued that the requirement for prior sanction under Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act does not apply to cognizance taken under Section 319 CrPC.
2. It contended that Section 319 allows for summoning a new accused based on evidence that emerges during the trial, irrespective of sanction.
3. The State submitted that the respondent was clearly implicated by the complainant’s testimony, justifying the trial court’s order.

G) RESPONDENT’S ARGUMENTS

1. The respondent asserted that the absence of prior sanction under Section 19 rendered the trial court’s order illegal and unsustainable.
2. The respondent emphasized that Section 19 creates a mandatory precondition for prosecuting public servants under the Prevention of Corruption Act.
3. The respondent relied on precedents highlighting the overriding nature of Section 19 over general procedural provisions like Section 319 CrPC.

H) RELATED LEGAL PROVISIONS

• Section 19, Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988: Requires prior sanction for prosecuting public servants.
• Section 319, CrPC: Permits the trial court to summon additional accused based on evidence emerging during trial.

I) JUDGMENT

a. Ratio Decidendi

1. The Supreme Court held that Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act mandates prior sanction for prosecution against public servants.
2. It ruled that Section 19 overrides Section 319 CrPC, making sanction a prerequisite even when additional accused are summoned.
3. The trial court erred in summoning the respondent without obtaining sanction, rendering the entire procedure flawed.

b. Obiter Dicta (if any)

1. The Court underscored the necessity of strict compliance with statutory safeguards in cases involving public servants to prevent misuse of law.

c. Guidelines

1. Courts must ensure compliance with Section 19 before proceeding against public servants under the Prevention of Corruption Act.
2. Section 319 CrPC cannot be used to circumvent mandatory statutory requirements like prior sanction.

J) CONCLUSION & COMMENTS

This judgment reinforces the mandatory nature of prior sanction under Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act. It emphasizes the importance of safeguarding public servants from arbitrary prosecution, ensuring adherence to statutory procedures.

REFERENCES

1. Dilawar Singh v. Parvinder Singh (2005) 12 SCC 709.
2. Paul Varghese v. State of Kerala (2007) 14 SCC 783.
3. Surinderjit Singh Mand v. State of Punjab (2016) 8 SCC 722.