S. 19 PC Act | Valid Sanction Needed To Prosecute Public Servants, But Mere Error In Sanction Can't Reverse Conviction: Kerala High Court

Partly allowing an appeal, Justice A Badharudeen passed the order while confirming the conviction of the appellant, a former Village Officer for demanding and accepting a bribe of ₹250 in 2001 for issuing possession certificates in respect of a property, but reduced his sentence to the statutory minimum.

The Central issue before the court was whether a conviction under section 7 and 13(2) read with section 13(1) of PC Act could be sustained when sanction was granted by an authority lacking competence.

While challenging the conviction and sentence passed by the sessions court, the appellant claimed that the sanction to prosecute him issued by Deputy Land Revenue Commissioner is illegal since the official is not the competent authority to issue the sanction. 

The counsel for the appellant, relied on the Supreme Court's decision in Nanjappa v State of Karnataka (2015), which held that absence of valid sanction is fatal and goes to the very root of jurisdiction. Decision of high Court of Bombay in Sudhir v State of Maharashtra (2025) was also relief upon to show that the ratio of Nanjappa's case has been followed by High Courts.

The prosecution however, relied on State by Police Inspector v T Venkatesh Murthy (2004) and argued that, in view of Section 19 (3), any defect in sanction would not automatically invalidate trial unless it had occasioned a “failure of justice.”

It further relied on Central Bureau of Investigation v Jagat Ram [2024 INSC 952], to contend that under sub-section 3(a) of Section 19 of the Act, "no finding, sentence or order by a Special Judge shall be reversed by a court of appeal on the ground of absence, error, omission or irregularity in the sanction". 

The high court referred to Section 19 (1) of PC Act mandates that no court shall take cognizance of corruption offences against a public servant without prior sanction from the competent authority.

Justice Badharudeen after perusing the judgments and provisions observed:

“In order to take cognizance for the offences under Section 7, 10, 11, 13 and 15 of the P.C. Act, alleged to have committed by a public servant, sanction is necessary. After taking cognizance, during trial, when considering the validity of sanction on the ground of absence of, any error or omission or irregularity in the sanction, including the incompetency of the authority to grant sanction, a court in appeal, confirmation or revision on the said ground, no finding, sentence or order passed by the special judge shall not be interfered, unless the court finds that such error or omission or irregularity has resulted in a failure of justice. Therefore, even though sanction is necessary to take cognizance for offences under Sections 7, 10, 11, 13 and 15 of the P.C. Act alleged to be committed by a public servant, unless there is no failure of justice in the finding, sentence or order passed by the Special Judge shall not be reversed or altered by a court in appeal, confirmation or revision”

The high court said that in the present matter the trial court found on evidence that, there was no failure of justice in this case, merely because sanction was granted by the Deputy Land Revenue Commissioner instead of Land Revenue Commissioner.

"In the instant case, the evaluation evidence does not show that failure of justice occasioned because a wrong authority issued sanction. Therefore, interference of the verdict impugned, on the said ground would not succeed. 

Noting that explanation to section 19(4) of the P.C. Act specifically provides that error includes competency of the authority to grant sanction, the court said that as failure of justice did not happen in the present case, merely finding error in the sanction would not warrant interference by the high court to the conviction and sentence.

Partly allowing the appeal, the high court modified the sentence to rigorous imprisonment for one year which is the minimum sentence and fine of Rs 7,500 for offence punishable under Section 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) PC Act.

The appellant was also sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months (bare minimum) and to pay Rs 10,000 for offence punishable under Section 7 PC Act. 

Case Title - Luckose Joseph v State of Kerala

Citation - 2025 Livelaw (Ker) 505

Case No - Crl. A 509/ 2008

Counsel for Appellant - B Raman Pillai (Sr.), Anil K Muhamed, R Anil

Counsel for Respondent - Rajesh A (Sr. PP), Rekha S (Sr. PP)