Punjab & Haryana HC Sets Aside Conviction In Corruption Case, Says Sanction Order Was Copied From Draft Provided By Vigilance Bureau

The Punjab & Haryana High Court set aside the conviction under Prevention of Corruption Act observing that the sanction order was invalid, rendering the entire prosecution as "void ab initio." 

Kamalpreet Singh Dhariwal, who was then posted as the District Manager, Market federation (Markfed), was convicted under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for three years.

Justice Manjari Nehru Kaul noted that, "the sanctioning authority merely signed the draft provided by the Vigilance Bureau, which clearly demonstrates that there was no independent satisfaction arrived by the competent authority. The argument advanced by learned State counsel that the sanction order records that the competent authority had applied its mind is devoid of merit, as even those lines were copied from the draft provided by the Vigilance Bureau."

According to the prosecution Dhariwal had demanded illegal gratification of Rs. 3 lakh to return 1,19,500 gunny bags, borrowed from Commission Agents in Jagraon Market for purchasing paddy on behalf of Markfed.

It was submitted that unwilling to pay the bribe, the complainant accompanied by his friend, approached the Vigilance Bureau with currency notes amounting to Rs.1 lakh and requested action against the appellant. The alleged bribe money was recovered from the table and while Dhariwal was lying on the bed.

After examining the submissions, the Court considered the question, "whether the sanction to prosecute the appellant was validly granted. Sanction is not a mere formality."

The Court noted that it is an admitted case that the sanction order was a verbatim copy of the draft sanction order provided by the Vigilance Bureau.

"This categorical admission leaves no room for doubt that the sanction order was granted in a mechanical manner, without any independent application o mind. The Vigilance Bureau had no authority to prepare or dictate the sanction order, as the responsibility of applying an independent mind solely rests with the competent authority," said the judge.

Justice Kaul highlighted that the requirement of sanction under the PC Act is not a perfunctory or routine approval by the sanctioning authority but a carefully considered and well-reasoned decision.

The Court said that, it serves a dual purpose: protection of innocent public servants, so that it is ensured that upright officers are not subjected to frivolous, baseless or politically motivated proceedings. "At the same time, it also serves as a weapon against corruption; it ensures that there is a robust preliminary scrutiny of the allegations, thereby, reinforcing the integrit of anti-corruption measures."

It opined that, "sanction acts as a judicial safeguard, striking a balance between preventing harassment of honest officials and ensuring that corrupt officials do not evade accountability. Any mechanical or unconsidered sanction would deleat the legislative intent, rendering the provision meaningless."

Furthermore, the Court said that the absence of proof of either demand or acceptance is fatal to the prosecution case.

"It is not sufficient to show that money was merely exchanged; there must be a clear evidence that the public servant demanded the bribe. Even if demand is proved, it must also be shown that the public servant actually received the bribe with the corrupt intent. Mere recovery of money is insufficient in itself," said the Court.

The Court opined that the testimony of the shadow witness is not reliable.

"The complainant...admitted in his cross-examination that he could not state how many times the appellant had demanded money from him, nor could he specify the date and month of such demand. He further conceded that despite the alleged repeated demands, he never reported the same to any senior official of Markfed," observed the Court.

Referring to Section 7 of the PC Act, the Court said that the prosecution must establish beyond reasonable doubt that the accused made an illicit demand for gratification. The prosecution cannot rely on mere conjectures or assumptions, it must establish the demand with concrete and credible evidence.

"Any ambiguity in proving demand benefits the accused. Moreover a request for money per se does not automatically amount to an illegal demand," said the Court.

Justice Kaul explained that the prosecution must prove that the money was sought as a bribe in exchange for an official favour. If an officer asks for money for an official purpose, e.g. government fees or legitimate reimbursement, it does not constitute a bribe offence under Section 7 of the PC Act is not attracted merely because money was requested; the illegal nature of the demand must be conclusively demonstrated.

While setting aside the conviction, the Court observed, "the prosecution in the present case failed to prove that the appellant voluntarily accepted the money, knowing it to be bribe. The alleged bribe money which recovered from a bag placed on the table, whereas the appellant was lying on the bed. If the appellant had accepted the money, the Investigating Officer ought to have conducted a hand wash test immediately, rather than first instructing the appellant to take out notes from the bag before testing his hands."

Ms. G.K. Mann, Senior Advocate with Ms. Simrat Kaur, Advocate,

Mr. Anand Jeewan Singh Gill, Advocate, for the appellant.

Mr. Amit Rana, Senior DAG, Punjab.

Title: Kamalpreet Singh Dhariwal v. State of Punjab

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (PH) 123

Click here to read/download the order