Justice P.S. Narasimha, Justice Manoj Misra, Supreme Court
Validity Of Sanction Is An Issue That Must Be Examined During The Course Of Trial: Supreme Court Revives Disproportionate Assets Case
|The Supreme Court held that the High Court committed an error in quashing the prosecution on the ground that the sanction to prosecute was illegal and invalid.
The Supreme Court has reiterated that the validity of a sanction is an issue that must be examined during the course of trial.
The Court set aside the Order of the Madras High Court that had quashed criminal proceedings against a former Assistant Director (Respondent) at the Nagercoil Local Planning Authority, accused of possessing assets disproportionate to his known sources of income. The Court held that the High Court committed an error in quashing the prosecution on the ground that the sanction to prosecute was illegal and invalid.
A Bench of Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Justice Manoj Misra held, “This is typically the problem that would arise when the High Court seeks to interdict proceedings and quash the criminal case before the relevant material to support the case of the prosecution is brought on record. Findings regarding the legality, validity, or delay in grant of sanction were premature. Validity of the sanction is an issue that must be examined during the course of the trial.”
AOR Sabarish Subramanian represented the Appellant, while AOR Abhishek Gupta appeared for the Respondent.
Brief Facts
An FIR was registered by the Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Department, which alleged that the Respondent had accumulated assets which were disproportionate to his known sources of income The Special Court for Prevention of Corruption Act Cases framed charges under Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, after rejecting Respondent’s discharge application.
The Respondent then filed a revision petition before the High Court, challenging the Special Court’s refusal to discharge him. The High Court dismissed his Revision, affirming that a prima facie case existed and that the validity of the evidence could only be tested during trial. However, within seven months, the Respondent moved the High Court again under Section 482 of the CrPC, seeking to quash the criminal proceedings.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court referred to its decision in Dinesh Kumar v. Chairman, Airport Authority of India (2012), wherein it was held, “All such grounds of invalidity or illegality of sanction would fall in the same category like the ground of invalidity of sanction on account of non-application of mind—a category carved out by this Court in Parkash Singh Badal,13 the challenge to which can always be raised in the course of trial.”
The Court held, “Thus, there is no doubt that the High Court committed an error in quashing the prosecution on the ground that the sanction to prosecute is illegal and invalid. In conclusion, we find that the objections raised in the revision petition against the Special Court’s order dismissing the discharge application were identical to the grounds raised in the petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., from which the present appeal arises.”
Consequently, the Court ordered, “For the reasons stated above, we are of the opinion that the reasoning adopted by the High Court for interdicting the criminal proceedings is contrary to the well-established principles laid down by this Court. We, therefore, set aside the judgment while reiterating the correct position of law…The appeal is allowed accordingly.”
Accordingly, the Supreme Court allowed the Appeal.
Cause Title: State v. G. Easwaran (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 397)
Appearance:
Appellant: AOR Sabarish Subramanian; Advocates Poornachandiran R, Vishnu Unnikrishnan and Danish Saifi
Respondent: AOR Abhishek Gupta