Supreme Court Sets Aside MP HC Direction To Trial Courts To Examine Sanctioning Authority Before Framing Charges In Corruption Cases

The Supreme Court today set aside directions issued by the MP High Court requiring trial courts to examine sanctioning authorities under Section 311 of the CrPC before framing charges in cases under the Prevention of Corruption Act (PC Act), holding that courts cannot create a new procedural stage not contemplated by criminal law.

A bench of Justice PK Mishra and Justice Atul Chandurkar held that the CrPC lays down a complete procedure for the conduct of criminal trials and that courts cannot, through judicial directions, compel trial courts to depart from that procedure.

“A new stage in trial cannot be introduced by judicial fiat. Trial in a criminal case, including in offences under Prevention of Corruption Act, has to be conducted in the manner provided for in the Code of Criminal Procedure/BNSS read with the provisions contained in PC Act. The High Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Contribution of India cannot rewrite the Code of Criminal Procedure and direct all the sessions court/special courts under PC Act to examine the sanctioning authority even before framing of charge or commencement of trial”, the Court held.

The appeals arose from the High Court judgment dismissing a writ petition that had challenged a sanction for prosecution granted against the accused. Although the accused was subsequently acquitted and the challenge to the sanction itself had become infructuous, the State of MP challenged the wider directions issued by the High Court its judgment.

The High Court had directed trial courts dealing with corruption cases to examine the sanctioning authority at the stage of taking cognizance by invoking Section 311 CrPC. It reasoned that the validity of a sanction order should be tested at the earliest stage so that defective sanctions could be identified before a lengthy trial is conducted.

In review proceedings, the High Court upheld the guideline, holding that Section 19(4) of the Prevention of Corruption Act permits objections relating to sanction to be raised at an early stage. It reiterated that examining the sanctioning authority before trial would avoid situations where convictions are later set aside solely because of invalid sanctions.

Before the Supreme Court, the State argued that the directions would create difficulties in criminal trials far beyond corruption cases. It was submitted that the High Court had incorrectly interpreted Section 311 CrPC as permitting courts to summon and examine witnesses immediately after the filing of the charge sheet and before the commencement of trial.

The respondent, however, defended the directions, arguing that Section 311 CrPC empowers a court to summon and examine any person at any stage of an inquiry, trial or other proceeding and that the High Court's directions were consistent with the language of the provision.

The Supreme Court held that the CrPC contains a complete framework governing criminal trials. The Court noted that the stages of criminal proceedings are prescribed from Chapter 15 to 21 of the Code and Section 311 falls within Chapter 24 containing general provisions relating to inquiries and trials.

The Court said that this general provision could not be interpreted in a manner that would require criminal courts to bypass the procedure prescribed for conducting trials and evolve a new methodology requiring examination of sanctioning authorities before charges are framed.

“This general provision cannot be read into a step in conduct of trial so as to force the criminal court with jurisdiction to bypass the procedure provided for conduct of trial and evolve a new procedure or methodology for conducting trial by examining the sanctioning authority before framing of charge. There is no such procedure provided in the CrPC where such step can be made permissible”, the Court emphasised.

The Court further held that criminal trials, including prosecutions under the Prevention of Corruption Act, must be conducted strictly in accordance with the CrPC or the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, read with the provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act.

The Court stated that the High Court, while exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, could not rewrite the procedural law governing criminal trials and direct all Sessions Courts and Special Courts under the Prevention of Corruption Act to examine sanctioning authorities before framing charges or commencement of trial.

Accordingly, the Supreme Court set aside paragraphs 32 and 33 of the High Court judgment.

Case no. – Crl.A. No. 002191 - 002192 / 2025

Case Title – State of Madhya Pradesh v. Ravi Shankar Singh