LexTHE STATE OF PUNJAB versus HARI KESH
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2025] 1 S.C.R. 651 : 2025 INSC 50 The State of Punjab v. Hari Kesh (Criminal Appeal No. 104 of 2025) 07 January 2025 [Bela M. Trivedi and Prasanna B. Varale, JJ.] Issue for Consideration Whether the High Court was justified in quashing the Sanction Order and setting aside the proceedings arising therefrom, thereby allowing the petition filed by the accused. Headnotes† Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Whether High Court was correct in quashing the sanction order when the trial had already commenced and the prosecution had already examined seven witnesses – Correctness: Held: The petition for quashing of Sanction Order was filed by the respondent after the trial court framed the charge and commenced the trial, rather after the prosecution examined five witnesses – While deciding the issue, The Hon’ble Supreme Court placed heavy reliance on State of Karnataka, Lokayukta Police Versus S. Subbegowda (2023 SCC Online SC 911), where the Hon’ble Apex Court dealt with ss.19(3) and 19(4) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and held, sanction order passed by special judge shall not be interfered with, by the Court in appeal or revision on the ground of the absence of, or any error, omission or irregularity in the sanction, unless the said Court in appeal or revision finds that failure of justice has occurred while passing impugned order — The High Court failed to record any opinion as to how a failure of justice had in fact on account of error if any, occurred in granting the sanction by the authority – As per the Explanation to sub-section (4), of Section 19, error includes “competency of the authority to grant Sanction” – The Sanction, in question, has been granted by the competent authority or not, would be a matter of evidence to be proved by the prosecution during the course of trial – The High Court committed gross error in quashing the Sanction Order and the consequent proceedings 652 [2025] 1 S.C.R. Supreme Court Reports as the High Court failed to record any opinion as to how a failure of justice had occasioned, thus the order passed by High Court is set aside. [Paras 7, 8, 9] Case Law Cited State of Karnataka, Lokayukta Police v. S. Subbegowda [2023] 11 SCR 19 : 2023 SCC Online SC 911 – relied upon. List of Acts Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988; Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. List of Keywords Grant of Sanction under Prevention of Corruption Act; Competency to grant Sanction; Failure of justice. Case Arising From CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 104 of 2025 From the Judgment and Order dated 20.05.2019 of the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh in CRM-M No. 11994 of 2019 Appearances for Parties Vivek Jain, D.A.G., Karan Sharma, Advs. for the Appellant. Vivek Gupta, Ankit Verma, Advs. for the Respondent. Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court Judgment 1. Leave granted. 2. The present appeal, filed by the appellant-State of Punjab, is directed against the impugned judgment and order dated 20.05.2019, passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in CRM-M No. 11994 of 2019 (O&M), whereby the said petition, filed by the respondent-accused seeking quashing of Sanction Order dated 19.11.2018, in the case arising out of F.I.R. No. 02 dated [2025] 1 S.C.R. 653 The State of Punjab v. Hari Kesh 10.01.2024, registered at Police Station-Vigilance Bureau, Patiala Range, Patiala for the offence punishable under Sections 7 and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short “the Act”), has been allowed and the consequent proceedings arising therefrom have been set aside. 3. Heard learned counsels for the parties. 4. It is sought to be submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant- State of Punjab that the High Court had passed the impugned order when the trial had already commenced and the prosecution had already examined seven witnesses. Learned counsel places heavy reliance on the decision of this Court in the case of State of Karnataka, Lokayukta Police Versus S. Subbegowda (2023 SCC Online SC 911), to submit that the High Court has committed an error in quashing the Sanction Order and setting aside the proceedings arising therefrom when the trial has already commenced. 5. However, the learned counsel for the respondent-accused submits that the High Court has rightly quashed the proceedings considering the fact that earlier, Sanction sought was not granted by the competent authority and now, the impu
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.