PC Act | No Prior Sanction Needed In Cases Where Cognizance Was Taken Before 2018 Amendment: Delhi High Court
The Delhi High Court has held that the 2018 amendment to Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, which extended the requirement of prior sanction to prosecute former public servants, operates prospectively and does not reopen cases in which cognizance had already been taken before July 26, 2018.A division bench comprising Justice Navin Chawla and Justice Ravinder Dudeja said that...
The Delhi High Court has held that the 2018 amendment to Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, which extended the requirement of prior sanction to prosecute former public servants, operates prospectively and does not reopen cases in which cognizance had already been taken before July 26, 2018.
A division bench comprising Justice Navin Chawla and Justice Ravinder Dudeja said that the Amendment is retrospective to the extent that the benefit thereunder would enure even where the offence is alleged to have been committed prior to its coming into force.
“…however, it is prospective to the effect that, where cognizance of such offence already stands taken before 26.07.2018, the same shall not be reopened and there would be no fresh requirement of prior sanction in such cases. The requirement of taking sanction would be applicable only where the Court is yet to take cognizance of the offence mentioned in Section 19(1) of the Act as on 26.07.2018 and thereafter,” the Court said.
The Bench answered a reference made by a Special Judge (PC Act), CBI, concerning the scope and applicability of the Prevention of Corruption (Amendment) Act, 2018.
It held that where cognizance of offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act had already been taken before the amendment came into force on July 26, 2018, such proceedings would not have to be reopened for obtaining fresh sanction from the competent authority.
The amended provision requiring sanction would apply only to cases where the court was yet to take cognizance on or after the amendment came into force.
The Court said that the amendment to Section 19(1) of the 1988 Act creates a new prohibition on the Court from taking cognizance of certain offences committed by an accused who has ceased to be a public servant or is a public servant in a capacity other than the one which he held when the alleged offence had been committed.
It added that the said prohibition and consequential protection to an accused, prior to its amendment in 2018, was not applicable to a person who had ceased to be a public servant or who was not a public servant in the same capacity.
The Bench said that the Amendment Act was specifically brought into force with effect from 26.07.2018 and thus, was not intended to affect the cases where cognizance already stood taken against accused for whom prior sanction was not required by the then existing law.
“It thus inserts a new obligation on the prosecution and does not give any indication of having a retrospective effect, except to the fact that even though the offence may relate to a period prior to the amendment, the protection would enure to the benefit of such former public servants when the Court is to take cognizance of the offence after the Amendment Act has come into force,” the Court said.
Answering the reference, the Bench directed that the file of the case be transmitted to the concerned Special Judge for proceeding further with the matter.
“The same shall be listed before the concerned Special Judge on 10th September, 2026,” the Court directed.
Title: COURT ON ITS OWN MOTION v. STATE