Supreme Court Mandates Sanction for Summoning Public Servants Under Section 319 CrPC

The Supreme Court of India has ruled that a sanction is necessary to summon a public servant as an additional accused under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC). This decision reinforces the requirement of obtaining prior sanction under Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act (PC Act) before proceeding against public servants in corruption cases.

Key Takeaways

The Supreme Court emphasized the necessity of obtaining a sanction under Section 19 of the PC Act before summoning a public servant as an additional accused under Section 319 CrPC.
The ruling came in the case of the State of Punjab vs. Pratap Singh Verka, where the trial court’s decision to summon an additional accused without prior sanction was challenged.
The Court upheld the High Court’s decision, which had reversed the trial court’s order due to the lack of mandatory sanction.

Background

In the case of the State of Punjab vs. Pratap Singh Verka, the trial court had allowed an application under Section 319 CrPC to summon a public servant as an additional accused. However, the trial court did not consider the requirement of obtaining a prior sanction under Section 19 of the PC Act. The High Court reversed this decision, leading to an appeal in the Supreme Court.

Supreme Court’s Ruling

The Supreme Court bench, comprising Justices Sudhanshu Dhulia and Prasanna B. Varale, reiterated that courts cannot take cognizance of offenses committed by public servants under Sections 7, 11, 13, and 15 of the PC Act without first obtaining a sanction from the appropriate government authority. The Court stated that this requirement applies even when summoning a public servant as an additional accused under Section 319 CrPC.

Legal Precedents

The Court referred to the judgment in Surinderjit Singh Mand vs. State of Punjab, which held that a sanction from the appropriate authority is a mandatory prerequisite even when cognizance of an offense is taken under Section 319 CrPC against a public servant. The Court also cited the decision in Dilawar Singh vs. Parvinder Singh, which explained that the provisions of Section 19 of the PC Act override the general provisions of Section 319 CrPC.

Implications

This ruling underscores the importance of adhering to procedural requirements when prosecuting public servants for corruption. It ensures that the prosecution obtains the necessary sanction before moving forward with an application under Section 319 CrPC. The decision aims to prevent procedural flaws and uphold the integrity of the judicial process.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s decision in the State of Punjab vs. Pratap Singh Verka reinforces the mandatory requirement of obtaining a sanction under Section 19 of the PC Act before summoning public servants as additional accused under Section 319 CrPC. This ruling highlights the importance of following due process in corruption cases involving public servants.