Can I challenge the validity of sanction for prosecution?

I want to challenge the validity of sanction for prosecution. The CBI obtained the sanction for prosecution by force and using undue means. My superior officer was working under pressure of the CBI and granted the sanction prosecution. Now I have retired and my case is still pending in the special CBI court. Can I challenge the validity of the sanction at this stage? This is very crucial for my case because this sanction is invalid and illegal.

I want to challenge the validity of sanction for prosecution. The CBI obtained the sanction for prosecution by force and using undue means. My superior officer was working under pressure of the CBI and granted the sanction prosecution. Now I have retired and my case is still pending in the special CBI court. Can I challenge the validity of the sanction at this stage? This is very crucial for my case because this sanction is invalid and illegal.

Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act (PC Acct) specifically prohibits cognisance without sanction. The sanction must be legal and issued in following due procedure. Validity of sanction is the most vital part of prosecution under the PC Act. 

If there is any defect in sanction the court will discharge the accused at the trial. Why does the court discharge the accused instead of acquit? When the sanction is defective it renders the cognisance invalid consequently, the entire trial becomes void. 

Thus in absence of a valid cognisance the court discharges the accused. The court cannot convict the accused on invalid sanction.

Can I challenge the validity of sanction at the stage of trial?

Yes, you can challenge the validity of sanction at any stage of proceeding. In Nanjappa Vs. State of Karnataka (2015) 14 SCC 186 the Supreme Court has held that the question regarding validity of sanction can be raised at any stage of the proceeding.

Sanction is a statutory protection of a public servant. It protects the public servant from a malicious prosecution under the PC Act.

Also read: Prosecution sanction is not necessary for retired public servant 

In N.K. Ganguly vs. CBI, New Delhi (2016) 2 SCC 143 the Supreme Court has opined that sanction under Section 19 of Prevention of Corruption Act is necessary to see that a public servant is not entangled in a frivolous and false case. 

You should file a discharge application

It is the duty of the court to examine the validity of sanction for prosecution. If the court takes cognisance on defective sanction the whole proceeding becomes void. Therefore, the accused accrues a right to be discharged. 

In Nanjappa Vs. State of Karnataka (2015) 14 SCC 186 the Supreme Court has held that where the sanction order is found to be invalid, the Trial Court can even discharge the accused.

You should move a discharge application as soon as possible. Discharge application is maintainable at any stage of proceeding. 

Tags:

Shivendra Pratap Singh

Shivendra Pratap Singh

Advocate

Advocate Shivendra, practicing law since 2005, specializes in criminal and matrimonial cases, extensive litigatin experience before the High Court, Sessions court & Family Court. He established kanoonirai.com in 2014 to provide dependable and pragmatic legal support. Over the years, he has successfully assisted thousands of clients, making the platform a trusted resource for criminal and matrimonial dispute resolution in India.

Related Matters

क्या चेक बाउंस का केस मियाद समाप्त होने के बाद भी दाखिल हो सकता है

Negotiable Instruments Act के अंतर्गत, वैधानिक अवधि समाप्त होने के बाद भी चेक बाउंस का मामला दायर किया जा सकता है। यदि शिकायतकर्ता देरी का उचित कारण प्रस्तुत करता है, तो न्यायालय विलंब को क्षमा कर शिकायत स्वीकार कर सकता है। नोटिस के बाद निर्धारित समय में भुगतान न होने पर कार्यवाही प्रारंभ की जा सकती है।

Cancellation of bail when accused tempering with witness

Seeking the cancellation of bail is possible when an accused person tampers with witnesses or influences a trial. This guide explains legal grounds for such actions, focusing on mandatory procedures under Section 15-A of the SC/ST Act and post-bail threats. Learn how victims can approach higher courts to ensure a fair trial and protect their rights.

Evidence of interested witness is admissible in criminal proceedings

In criminal law, the testimony of a related witness cannot be discarded solely due to their relationship with the victim. This legal overview clarifies the distinction between related and interested witnesses, citing key Supreme Court rulings. It explains how natural witnesses provide admissible evidence that reliably forms the basis for a conviction, even without independent corroboration.

SDM cannot attach property under section 146 crpc when civil suit is pending

A Sub-Divisional Magistrate cannot legally attach property under Section 146 of the CrPC if a civil suit regarding the same property is already pending. This guide explains why such orders lack jurisdiction and outlines the proper legal remedy, including filing a petition under Section 482 CrPC to the High Court based on established Supreme Court precedents.

Produce Pendrive as Evidence: Legal Process Explained

Legal experts clarify that digital evidence, such as a pen drive, can be produced even at an advanced stage of a criminal trial under Section 294 of the CrPC. If a trial court rejects such material evidence based on timing, the defendant may challenge the order in the High Court to ensure a fair trial and just adjudication.