Sec.19(4) Of Prevention of Corruption Act | Error Includes ‘Competency of Authority to Grant Sanction’: SC Sets Aside Judgment Quashing Sanction Order
The Supreme Court was considering an appeal against a Punjab and Haryana High Court judgment quashing a Sanction Order in a corruption case.

The Supreme Court set aside a judgment quashing a Sanction Order in a corruption case and held that the quashing petition should not have been entertained when the prosecution had already examined 7 witnesses and there was not a whisper about any failure of justice having occurred on account of the Sanction Order.
The Apex Court was considering an appeal filed by the appellant-State against the impugned judgment of the Punjab and Haryana High Court whereby the petition filed by the respondent-accused seeking quashing of a Sanction Order in a case registered under Sections 7 and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (PC Act) was allowed.
The Division Bench comprising Justice Bela M. Trivedi and Justice Prasanna B. Varale remarked, “There is not a whisper in the impugned order about any failure of justice having occurred on account of the impugned Sanction Order.”
Deputy Advocate General (DAG) Vivek Jain represented the Appellant while AOR Vivek Gupta represented the Respondent.
Issue
The short question which arose for determination was whether the High Court could have set aside the impugned Sanction Order and the proceedings arising therefrom when the trial had already commenced and the prosecution had examined seven witnesses.
Reasoning
The Apex Court placed reliance upon its judgment in State of Karnataka, Lokayukta Police Versus S.Subbegowda (2023) wherein it was observed that Section 19 (3) forbids the court in appeal, confirmation or revision, the interference with the order passed by the Special Judge on the ground that the sanction was bad, save and except in cases where the appellate or revisional court finds that the failure of justice had occurred due to invalidity regarding Authority’s competency.
The Bench made it clear that as per the explanation to section 19(4), error includes “competency of the authority to grant Sanction.” “Therefore, in view of the settled legal position, the High Court should not have quashed the Sanction Order and the consequent proceedings, unless it was satisfied that the failure of justice had occurred by such error or irregularity or invalidity”, it added.
Noting that there was not a whisper in the impugned order about any failure of justice having occurred on account of the impugned Sanction Order, the Bench stated that the Court also should not have entertained the petition for quashing the Sanction Order when the prosecution had already examined seven witnesses.
Thus, allowing the appeal and setting aside the impugned judgment, the Bench restored the proceedings before the Special Court-Sangrur.“As stated earlier, whether the Sanction Order was passed by the competent authority or not, would be a matter of evidence to be proved by the prosecution during the course of trial”, the Bench concluded.
Cause Title: The State of Punjab v. Hari Kesh (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 50)
Appearance:
Appellant: Deputy Advocate General (DAG) Vivek Jain, AOR Karan Sharma
Respondent: AOR Vivek Gupta, Advocate Ankit Verma