Delhi High Court Upholds Summoning Of Sanctioning Authority Before Charge Stage In Corruption Case
The Delhi High Court has upheld the summoning of the sanctioning authority at the pre-charge stage in a corruption case, holding that courts are not barred from examining the validity of sanction before the commencement of trial where the facts so warrant.Justice Amit Mahajan thus dismissed a petition filed by the State challenging an order of the Special Judge permitting the accused to...
The Delhi High Court has upheld the summoning of the sanctioning authority at the pre-charge stage in a corruption case, holding that courts are not barred from examining the validity of sanction before the commencement of trial where the facts so warrant.
Justice Amit Mahajan thus dismissed a petition filed by the State challenging an order of the Special Judge permitting the accused to summon the sanctioning authority under Section 311 CrPC to test the validity of sanction granted for his prosecution.
“Even though there is some merit in the contention of the State that the stage of examining the validity of sanction is during the course of trial rather than at the pre-trial stage [Ref. CBI v. Ashok Kumar Aggarwal (supra)], however, there is no bar against consideration of the issue at pre-trial stage, and the issue can be determined at the outset if the facts warrant the same,” the bench observed.
It further noted that hearing of arguments on charge necessarily includes prima facie appreciation of the material collected during the investigation.
“...the cogency of the sanction is also a necessary fact that has to be considered by the learned Special Judge as the same has bearing on the Court's competence to try the accused,” the Court added.
It also noted that Section 311 CrPC confers wide powers on courts to summon or examine witnesses “at any stage” of an inquiry or trial, and such power can be exercised even at the pre-trial stage if it is essential for arriving at a just decision.
Per facts, initially no sanction had been sought against the accused due to lack of evidence, and he was placed in Column 12 of the chargesheet. It was only later, after observations made by the Special Judge during arguments on charge against a co-accused, that sanction was obtained against him.
In this backdrop, the High Court observed that the accused had a “legitimate apprehension” that the sanction was plagued with non-application of mind.
“The case of the accused – Vikram Singh Meena is essentially helmed on the argument that the sanction granted against him is unsustainable in law as the same was granted solely on direction of the learned Special Judge, thereby robbing the administrative authority of the discretion of applying its mind.”
Accordingly, the Court dismissed the State's petition.
Appearance: For the Petitioner : Ms. Priyanka Dalal, APP for the State Inspector Bhanu Pratap, PS- Vigilance in CRL.M.C. 4808/2019 Mr. Abhas Mishra & Ms. Deepika Gawri Tyagi, Advs. Mr. Ramesh Gupta, Sr. Adv. with Ms. Shailendra Singh, Mr. Ishaan Jain & Mr. Surya Pratap Singh, Advs. in CRL.M.C. 10017/2024 For the Respondent : Mr. Abhas Mishra & Ms. Deepika Gawri Tyagi, Advs. Mr. Ramesh Gupta, Sr. Adv. with Ms. Shailendra Singh, Mr. Ishaan Jain & Mr. Surya Pratap Singh, Advs. in CRL.M.C. 4808/2019. Ms. Priyanka Dalal, APP for the State Inspector Bhanu Pratap, PS- Vigilance in CRL.M.C. 10017/2024.
Case title: State v. Vikram Singh Meena
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 302
Case no.: CRL.M.C. 4808/2019