Prior sanction under section 19 of Prevention of Corruption Act was not obtained: Supreme Court dismisses appeal against High Court order in corruption case against doctor
Justices Sudhanshu Dhulia & P B Varale [08-07-2024]

Read Order: THE STATE OF PUNJAB v. PARTAP SINGH VERKA  [SC- CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1943 OF 2024]

LE Correspondent

New Delhi, July 9, 2024: The Supreme Court has dismissed an appeal filed by the State of Punjab against an order passed by the Punjab and Haryana High Court in a corruption case involving a doctor, Partap Singh Verka.

“It is a well settled position of law that courts cannot take cognizance against any public servant for offences committed under Sections 7,11,13 & 15 of the P.C. Act, even on an application under section 319 of the CrPC, without first following the requirements of Section 19 of the P.C Act,” observed a Bench of Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia and Justice P B Varale.

“Here, the correct procedure should have been for the prosecution to obtain sanction under Section 19 of the P.C Act from the appropriate Government, before formally moving an application before the Court under Section 319 of CrPC. In fact, the Trial Court too should have insisted on the prior sanction, which it did not. In absence of the sanction the entire procedure remains flawed,” the Bench further said.

The case dates back to April 2016 when an FIR was lodged against Dr. Verka and another co-accused, Vikas, for allegedly demanding and accepting a bribe from a complainant to admit his brother, who was in jail, to a hospital for treatment. The complainant alleged that Dr. Verka had demanded Rs. 20,000 in total, which was to be paid in installments to Vikas.

During the trial, the complainant testified that it was Dr. Verka who had demanded the bribe, and Vikas had received the money on his behalf. Consequently, the trial court allowed an application under Section 319 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) to summon Dr. Verka as an accused. Dr. Verka challenged this order in the Punjab and Haryana High Court, which set aside the trial court's order on the grounds that prior sanction under Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (PC Act) had not been obtained.

The State of Punjab appealed against the High Court's order in the Supreme Court, arguing that sanction was not necessary as cognizance was taken by the court itself under Section 319 of the CrPC. However, the Supreme Court, in its judgment, referred to previous cases and held that the provisions of Section 19 of the PC Act have an overriding effect on the general provisions of the CrPC. The top court emphasized that prior sanction is a mandatory prerequisite for taking cognizance of offenses under Sections 7, 11, 13, and 15 of the PC Act, even when cognizance is taken under Section 319 of the CrPC.

The Supreme Court observed that the correct procedure would have been for the prosecution to obtain sanction under Section 19 of the PC Act before moving the application under Section 319 of the CrPC. In the absence of the sanction the entire procedure remains flawed.

“We are completely in agreement by the decision of the High Court and therefore are not inclined to interfere with the impugned order passed by the High Court and accordingly this appeal is hereby dismissed,” the top court held.