CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION ETC. versus V.K. SEHGAL AND ANR.

Citation: [1999] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 570 · Decided: 08-10-1999 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K.T. THOMAS · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION ETC. 
v. 
V.K. SEHGAL AND ANR. 
OCTOBER 8, 1999 
[K.T. THOMAS AND M.B. SHAH, JJ.) 
Cr.P.C. 1973: Section 465--Want of valid sanction for prosecution-
. Scope of interference by appellate or revisional Court-Govt. Officer--
Charged for receiving bribery-Trial, convicted and sentenced-On appeal, 
C High Court setting aside the conviction and sentenced on the ground that there 
was no valid sanction-Validity of-Held, a Court of appeal or revision is 
debarred from reversing a finding on ground of error or irregularity in sanction 
for prosecution, unless failure of justice has occurred-Thus High Court com-
mitted an error in setting aside the conviction and sentence-Prevention of 
D Corruption Act, 1947: Sections 6 and 5(2)-:l'revention of Corruption Act, 
1988: Sections 19(3)(a), 27 and 30(2)-:l'enal Code, 1860: Section 161. 
E 
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988: Sections 19(3)(a), 27 and 
30(2}-Want of valid sanction to prosecute-Power of appellate or revisional 
court to alter conviction and sentence-Scope of-Held, conviction and sen-
tence cannot be affinned or reversed merely on the ground of absence of 
sanction, much less on the ground of want of valid sanction. 
Respondent No. 1 was prosecuted for an offence under section 161 
IPC and section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947. The 
F prosecution case was that respondent No. 1 was working as Section, Officer 
in the Office of the Defence Pension Disbursement Section. He was trapped 
for receiving bribe from a pensioner. The Trial Court convicted and 
sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years with fine. 
Against this, respondent no. 1 accused filed an appeal before the High 
G Court on the ground that the sanction to prosecute him was not granted 
by competent authority. The High Court upholding his contention set aside 
the conviction and sentence. Hence the present appeal. 
Allowing the appeals, this Court 
H 
HELD : 1.1. The High Court committed an error in setting aside 
570 
• 
·~ 
C.B.I. ETC. v. V.K. SEHGAL 
571 
the conviction and sentence passed on the accused, on the ground of want A 
of a valid sanction. (578-H] 
1.2. A court of appeal or revision is debarred under section 4~5 of 
Criminal Procedure Code from reversing a finding (or even an order of 
conviction and sentence) on account of any error or irregularity in the 
sanction for the prosecution, unless failure of justice had been occasioned B 
on account of such error or irregularity. For· determining whether want 
of valid sanction had in fact occasioned failure of justice the aforesaid 
sub- section (2) enjoins on the court a duty to consider whether the 
accused had raised any objection on that score at the trial stage. Even if 
he had raised any such objection at the early stage it is hardly sufficient C 
to conclude that there was failure of justice. It has to be determined on 
the facts of each case. But an accused who did not raise it at the trial 
stage cannot possibly sustain such a plea made for the first time in the 
appellate court. (575-A; B; CJ 
Kalpnath Rai v. State through CBI, (1997] 8 SCC 732, relied on. 
D 
1.3. In a case where the accused failed to raise the question of valid 
sanction the trial would normally proceed to its logical end by making 
judicial scrutiny of the entire materials. If that case ends in conviction 
there is no question of failure of justice on the mere premise that no valid 
sanction was accorded for prosecuting the public servant, because the 
very purpose of providing such a filtering check is to safeguard public 
servants from frivolous or ma/a fide or vindictive prosecution on the 
allegation that they have committed offence in the discharge of their 
official duties. But once the judicial filtering process is over on completion 
of the trial the purpose of providing for the initial sanction would bog 
down to a surplusage. This could be the reason for providing a bridle 
upon the appellate ~nd revisional forums as envisaged in Section 465 of 
the Code of Criminal Procedure. (575-F; G; H; 576-A] 
E· 
F 
2. The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 was repealed by preven-
tion of Corruption Act, 1988. The prosecution and trial of the instant case G 
was thereafter continued by virtue of sub- section (2) of Section 30 of the 
1988 Act. Under the 1988 Act there is a special provision regarding appeal 
and revision which is incorporated in section 27, The said section states 
that the powers

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.