IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 120 CRA-S-1192-SB-2002 Date of decision: 25.04.2025 Jagat Ram .....Appellant Versus C.B.I. .....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANJARI NEHRU KAUL Present : Mr. Luvinder Sofat, Advocate as Amicus Curiae for the appellant. Mr. G.S. Wasu, Spl. P.P., CBI for the respondent-CBI. **** MANJARI NEHRU KAUL , J. 1. This Court is presently seized of a limited remand from Hon'ble the Supreme Court, as per its judgment dated 03.12.2024, rendered in Criminal Appeal No.4964 of 2024. While restoring the conviction of the appellant-accused as originally returned by the learned Special Judge, Chandigarh, the Hon'ble Apex Court remanded the matter to this Court solely for the limited purpose of determining whether any irregularity in the grant of sanction under Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), has resulted in a failure of justice. 2. Vide order dated 07.03.2025, this Court had appointed Mr.Luvinder Sofat, Advocate as Amicus Curiae. 3. Learned Amicus Curiae appearing for the appellant- accused has urged that the sanction accorded under Section 19(1) of the Act suffers from a fundamental legal infirmity. It is contended that PW- 9, Mr. M.S. Mahipal, who purportedly granted the sanction, did not VINAY 2025.05.02 11:26 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment CRA-S-1192-SB-2002 demonstrably apply his mind independently to the facts and material relevant to the case. Although the sanction order (Ex.PW-9/A), stands formally exhibited during trial, it is submitted that there is no accompanying evidence to suggest that the sanctioning authority considered the relevant material with due deliberation. 4. The learned Amicus Curiae has further argued that no official connected with the initiation or processing of the proposal for sanction-such as the investigating officer or any administrative officer- was examined at trial to establish the internal deliberative process that culminated in the grant of sanction. This, it is contended, amounts to a substantive failure to prove the subjective satisfaction of the competent authority, which is not merely a procedural lapse but strikes at the jurisdictional root of the prosecution itself. 5. It is further submitted that Section 19(1) of the Act places a mandatory bar on Courts from taking cognizance of offences punishable under the Act without a valid sanction. Where such sanction is absent in substance-meaning there is no real or discernible application of mind-the prosecution itself stands vitiated. Further, learned Amicus Curiae contends that this defect has caused grave prejudice to the accused, as it effectively nullified the legal safeguard statutorily conferred on public servants, thereby rendering the entire trial void ad initio. In this context, it is also submitted that the presumption under Section 20 of the Act, which enables the Court to presume acceptance of illegal gratification once receipt is proved, cannot be invoked where the prosecution itself is void for want of VINAY 2025.05.02 11:26 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment CRA-S-1192-SB-2002 lawful sanction. On these grounds, it is urged that the irregularity in sanction has occasioned a failure of justice, and consequently, the conviction cannot be sustained. 6. Per contra, learned standing counsel appearing for the CBI has submitted that the objection raised regarding the sanction is both factually and legally untenable. It is contended that the sanction order (Ex.PW-9/A) is self-contained, reasoned document reflecting due application of mind by the competent authority. The order specifically delineates the allegations against the accused, the legal provisions invoked, and the authority under which the sanction was granted. 7. It has been further submitted that the prosecution proved the sanction order through PW-9, Mr. M.S. Mahipal, who affirmed its authenticity and contents during his deposition. It is pointed out that at no stage-neither at the time of exhibiting the document nor during the examination of PW-9-was any objection raised by the defence regarding the validity or propriety of the sanction. No application was moved at any stage of the trial to challenge the sanction, and this conduct, it is argued, amounts to a waiver under Section 19(4) of the Act, which mandates that objections relating to sanction must be raised at the earliest opportunity. 8. Learned standing counsel for the CBI has placed reliance on the judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in CBI Vs. Ashok Kumar Aggarwal : 2014(14) SCC 295, to contend that a mere irregularity, omission, or error in the process of sanction does not vitiate the trial, unless it demonstrably results in a failure of justice. It is VINAY 2025.05.02 11:26 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment CRA-S-1192-SB-2002 highlighted that this Court, in its impugned judgment dated 10.05.2017, had categorically held that the demand and acceptance of bribe, stood proved beyond reasonable doubt and that the presumption under Section 20 of the Act was rightly drawn. These findings were not disturbed on merits. It has been argued that the sole ground for acquittal by this Court was the perceived absence of material proving internal sanctioning process-a ground which is contrary to both statutory scheme and binding precedent. 9. It is lastly submitted by the learned standing counsel for the CBI that the accused has failed to establish any specific prejudice— procedural or substantive—arising out of the alleged irregularity. There is no indication that the accused was in any manner disabled from putting forth a complete defence or that any evidence was withheld or disregarded due to the alleged infirmity. In such circumstances, Section 19(3) of the Act, read with Section 465 of the Cr.P.C. bars interference with the conviction solely on the ground of any irregularity in sanction. 10. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the relevant material on record. 11. In light of the remand order of Hon'ble the Supreme Court, the limited issue for adjudication before this Court is : whether the alleged irregularity, if any, in the process of grant of sanction under Section 19(1) of the Act has resulted in a failure of justice. 12. At the outset, it is pertinent to note that Section 19(3) of the Act and Section 465 of the Cr.P.C. embody the legislative intent that a conviction, sentence or order shall not be reversed merely by VINAY 2025.05.02 11:26 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment CRA-S-1192-SB-2002 reason of any error, omission, or irregularity in the grant of sanction, unless such irregularity has in fact resulted in a failure of justice. The threshold, therefore, is not mere procedural imperfection, but demonstrable prejudice. 13. Applying the above principles to the case at hand, this Court finds that no specific prejudice has either been pleaded or proved by the appellant-accused. There is no material on record to indicate that the alleged defect in sanction prevented the accused from effectively defending himself, led to the suppression of any relevant evidence, or occasioned any procedural irregularity that tainted the fairness of the trial. 14. The prosecution evidence, including the testimonies of the complainant and recovery witnesses, was duly subjected to cross- examination and appreciated by the learned Special Judge. No objection was raised to the propriety or validity of the sanction at the stage of cognizance or during trial. The first time such objection was taken was before this Court, which militates against the statutory requirement under Section 19(4) of raising such objections at the earliest. 15. Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Ashok Kumar Aggarwal's case (supra) has clarified that the expression “failure of justice”, is not to be understood as a ritualistic or formulaic plea. The burden is upon the accused to affirmatively demonstrate that the alleged irregularity in sanction has caused tangible prejudice. No such prejudice has been established in the present case. The submission that the sanctioning VINAY 2025.05.02 11:26 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment CRA-S-1192-SB-2002 authority did not apply its mind is a bald and unsubstantiated assertion, unsupported by any cross-examination, documentary omission or evidentiary gap. 16. Additionally, Section 19(4) of the Act assumes relevance. It provides that the belated raising of objections to sanction is a relevant consideration in determining their tenability. In the present case, no challenge was was mounted during trial, and the issue of sanction was raised only in appeal before the High Court, strongly indicating that no real or genuine grievance subsisted in the mind of the defence during trial. 17. In view of the above discussion, this Court is of the considered view that the alleged irregularity in the sanction has not occasioned a failure of justice within the meaning of Section 19(3) of the Act or Section 465 of the Cr.P.C. Even assuming arguendo that some procedural deviation occurred in the chain of administrative approval, such lapse has neither been shown to have prejudiced the accused nor to have undermined the foundational validity of the prosecution. 18. Accordingly, the limited question remanded by Hon'ble the Supreme Court is answered in the negative. This Court finds that no failure of justice has occurred on account of the alleged irregularity in the grant of sanction. 18. Consequently, the instant appeal stands dismissed. Judgment of conviction/sentence dated 22.07.2002 passed by learned Special Judge, Chandigarh, is upheld. VINAY 2025.05.02 11:26 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment CRA-S-1192-SB-2002 19. A copy of this order be sent to the learned Trial Court/Successor Court/CJM for taking necessary steps to take the appellant into custody to serve out the remaining sentence and also for realization of fine, if the same has been refunded to the appellant in compliance of judgment dated 10.05.2017. 25.04.2025 (MANJARI NEHRU KAUL) Vinay JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No VINAY 2025.05.02 11:26 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment