The Allahabad High Court has held that subsequent to the Amendment Act No. 16 of 2018, which came into effect on July 26, 2018, the prosecution sanction is mandatory even for retired public servants in view of Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

The High Court was considering an application filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), with a prayer to set aside the impugned orders passed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge/Special Judge (Anti-Corruption) in a case registered under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and Sections 166, 120-B of the IPC.

The Single Bench of Justice Nand Prabha Shukla held, “Considering the fact, that the prosecution sanction is mandatory in view of Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (as per Amendment Act No.16 in 2018) even for the retired public servants and despite the Amendment Act No. 16 of 2018 being prospective in operation, the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Meerut took cognizance vide order dated 28.08.2025 against the applicant without applying the judicial mind in a most casual and cursory manner, which has resulted in failure of justice and is not tenable in the eyes of law.”

Advocate Arvind Kumar Tiwari represented the Applicant while Government Advocate represented the Opposite Party.

Factual Background

The applicant, Dina Nath Jauhar, assumed the charge as the Vice-Chancellor of Dr. Bhim Rao Ambedkar University, Agra in 2011 and subsequently tendered his resignation in 2013. In the year 2014, the Vigilance Department, Uttar Pradesh initiated an open inquiry against the Deputy Registrar and others. After the inquiry, the draft final report was forwarded to the State Government, wherein the Government of U.P. recommended registering an FIR and investigating the matter. The FIR was lodged under Sections 409, 406, 420, 120B IPC and 13(1)(d), 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 against the applicant and several others pertaining to the allegations of various financial irregularities.

After the completion of the investigation, the Investigating Officer submitted the charge-sheet against the rest of the co-accused while the investigation against the applicant remained pending. Further, a supplementary charge-sheet was submitted against the applicant under Sections 166, 120B of IPC and Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (as amended vide Act No. 16 of 2018). The Additional District and Sessions Judge/Special Judge (Anti-Corruption), Meerut took cognisance and summoned the applicant to face trial under Section 166, 120-B and Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act.

Arguments

It was the case of the applicant that he, being a retired public servant, the previous sanction in terms of Section 19 was mandatory as the cognisance was taken subsequent to the Amendment Act No. 16 of 2018, which came into effect on July 26, 2018. The applicant submitted that the criminal proceedings launched against him stood vitiated as no previous sanction in view of Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 was obtained.

Reasoning

Referring to Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 as engrafted after amendment vide Act No. 16 of 2018, the Bench explained that after coming into operation of the Amendment Act No. 16 of 2018, the sanction for prosecution is mandatory even in the case of retired public servant

On a perusal of the facts, the Bench noted that though the applicant resigned/retired from his services in the year 2013, but the FIR was registered on September 4, 2018 i.e., subsequent to the Amendment Act No. 16 of 2018, which came into effect on July 26, 2018 and the cognizance was taken on May 28, 2025 i.e., subsequent to the said amendment of 2018.

Considering that the said amendment was prospective in operation, the Bench affirmed, “...it is trite that unless otherwise provided either expressly or by necessarily implication if Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act does not contain any express provision to show that they are retrospective in nature nor it is discernible by application, it shall be prospective in operation and shall be applicable from the date of commencement i.e., (w.e.f., 26.07.2018) as the legislature did not say anything otherwise and the Courts shall assume that the statute is meant to be prospective. Thus, it was mandatory for the prosecution to obtain prior prosecution sanction even in case of a retired public servant before taking cognizance.”

The Bench noted that though the prosecution sanction was sought by the prosecution vide its application dated May 8, 2024 but the same was denied on the ground that the prosecution sanction was not required as the applicant/accused had already retired. “The said order denying the sanction was passed without oblivious of the fact that it was mandatory to seek prosecution sanction even in the case of retired public servant before taking cognisance after the Amendment Act No. 16 of 2018, which came into effect on 26.07.2018 and has resulted in failure of justice”, it added.

Thus, allowing the application, the Bench set aside the impugned cognisance order and remitted the matter back with the direction that the prosecution/competent authority may take necessary steps to obtain fresh sanction as mandated under Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (As amended vide Act No. 16 of 2018) within 6 weeks.

Cause Title: Dina Nath Jauhar v. State of U.P. and Another (Neutral Citation: 2026:AHC:202086)

Appearance

Applicant: Advocates Arvind Kumar Tiwari, Vineet Kumar Singh

Opposite Party: Government Advocate

Click here to read/download Order


Tags: