Sanction For Prosecution U/S 19 PC Act Not Required After Public Servant Demits Office Or Retires: J&K & Ladakh High Court
The High Court held that the statutory protection of prior sanction under the Prevention of Corruption Act ceases once a public servant retires or demits office, and that no sanction is required for prosecution after superannuation.
The Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court has held that the protection of prior sanction for prosecution under Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, which is pari materia with Section 6 of the J&K Prevention of Corruption Act, is available only so long as a public servant remains in service, and that no sanction is required once the public servant has retired or demitted office.
The High Court clarified that the prosecution of a retired public servant for offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act cannot be stalled on the ground of absence of sanction, as the statutory protection ceases upon superannuation.
The Court was hearing a petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, read with Section 282 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, seeking quashing of criminal proceedings arising out of an FIR registered by the Vigilance Organisation, Kashmir, alleging misappropriation of public funds.
A Bench of Justice Sanjay Dhar, while dismissing the petition, held: “protection under Section 19 of the PC Act, which is an act pari-materia with Section 6 of the J&K PC Act, is available to a public servant only till he is in employment and no sanction thereunder is necessary after the public servant has demitted office or has retired from service”.
Advocate Arshid Andrabi appeared for the petitioner, while the respondents were represented by Mohsin Qadiri, Senior Additional Advocate General.
Background
The FIR in question was registered in the year 2000 for offences under Section 5(1)(c) and (d) read with Section 5(2) of the J&K Prevention of Corruption Act and Sections 120-B, 467, 468 and 409 of the Ranbir Penal Code. The allegations pertained to fraudulent withdrawal and misappropriation of public funds during the petitioner’s tenure as Accounts Officer in the office of the Director, Health Services, Kashmir.
Following the investigation, a charge sheet was filed against multiple accused persons, including the petitioner, alleging facilitation of illegal and fraudulent drawals of Leave Travel Concession amounts by manipulation of official records and grant of sanctions without competence.
The trial court, after considering the material on record, framed charges against the petitioner. Aggrieved, the petitioner approached the High Court seeking quashing of the proceedings, inter alia, on the ground that no sanction for prosecution had been obtained from the competent authority.
Court’s Observation
The High Court examined the contention regarding the absence of a sanction. It was also noted that it was not disputed that the petitioner had already superannuated from service at the time the charge-sheet was filed.
Relying on the decision of the Supreme Court in Station House Officer, CBI/ACB v. B.A. Srinivasan, the Court held that the protection of prior sanction under Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act is available only during the period when the public servant is in employment.
The Court observed that Section 19 of the PC Act, which is pari materia with Section 6 of the Jammu and Kashmir Prevention of Corruption Act, does not require a sanction for prosecution once a public servant has demitted office or retired from service. Accordingly, the Court held that the trial court was competent to proceed against the petitioner without any sanction.
The High Court further noted that the material collected during the investigation, including statements of senior officers, prima facie disclosed the petitioner’s involvement in the alleged offences. The Court also rejected the plea of violation of the right to speedy trial, holding that the delay in proceedings was attributable to factors beyond the control of the court or prosecution.
Conclusion
Holding that no sanction for prosecution was required after the petitioner’s retirement and that sufficient material existed to proceed with the trial, the Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court dismissed the petition and declined to interfere with the criminal proceedings pending before the trial court.
Cause Title: Ghulam Rasool Baba v. Principal Secretary to Government & Anr. (Neutral Citation: 2025:JKLHC-SGR:361)
Appearance
Petitioner: Arshid Andrabi, Advocate
Respondents: Mohsin Qadiri, Sr. AAG, with Maha Majeed, Advocate
