S. 19 PC Act | Sanction Not Vitiated Due To Minor Edits In Draft Sanction Order Without Affecting Substance : Supreme Court

The Supreme Court upheld the conviction of a retired public servant who had sought acquittal on the basis of alleged irregularities in the sanction order, noting that the minor edits made to the sanction report merely ensured that its form aligned with its substance, without altering its actual content.

Observing that no failure of justice had occurred, the bench comprising Justices Dipankar Datta and Manmohan held that the sanctioning authority had properly applied its mind and issued the sanction order after concluding that a prima facie case existed. Therefore, the Court ruled that minor alterations in the report, in the absence of any prejudice to substantial justice, did not render the sanction order invalid or justify acquittal on that basis.

“Even otherwise, merely because there is any omission, error or irregularity in the matter of granting sanction, that does not affect the validity of the proceedings unless the court records its own satisfaction that such error, omission or irregularity has resulted in a failure of justice.”, the court observed.

“If a draft order is placed before the sanctioning authority and he is satisfied that nothing needs to be added/deleted therefrom, the grant of sanction cannot be faulted merely on the ground of absence of addition of words to/deletion of words from the draft. We have noticed that PW-3 made four minor corrections to ensure that the substance conforms to the form in which the sanction was required to be given, without altering the substance (i.e. the contents). That there has been a complete absence of application of mind by PW-3 is, thus, not proved; also, that there has been a failure of justice, has not been shown. On facts, we are satisfied that there has been no irregularity, far less illegality, in grant of sanction. We are, thus, not even required to invoke provisions of Section 465, Cr. PC.”, the court added.

The Appellant was convicted in 2004 by a Special Court for demanding and accepting a bribe of ₹500 from a complainant in 2000 to expedite land record extracts. The Bombay High Court affirmed the conviction in September 2024, prompting him to appeal to the Supreme Court.

Before the Supreme Court, he argued procedural flaws, including alleged mechanical sanction for prosecution and improper investigation by an Inspector-rank officer.

The judgment authored by Justice Datta rejected claims that a sanction was granted without application of mind. The sanctioning authority affirmed minor edits to a draft order, satisfying Section 19 of the PC Act (previous sanction necessary for prosecution).

Citing Manzoor Ali Khan v. Union of India, (2015) 2 SCC 33, the bench emphasized that sanctions protect honest officials but cannot shield corruption; therefore dismissed the Appellant's claim for protection based on the edited sanction report.

Only Requirement For Sanctioning Authority Before Granting Sanction Is To Be Satisfied About Existence Of Prima Facie Case

“There is a legal impediment to prosecute a public servant for corruption, if there be no sanction. Grant of sanction is an administrative function based on the subjective satisfaction of the sanctioning authority after due application of mind to the materials placed before him. Whether sanction should be granted or not is, however, not about mental satisfaction of the truth of the facts placed before the officer competent to grant sanction but all that is necessary for a sanction to be granted is for him to be satisfied about the existence of a prima facie case.”, the Court observed.

Case Title: DASHRATH VERSUS THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 553

Click here to read/download the order

Appearance:

Ms. Meenakshi Arora, senior counsel for the appellant 

Ms. Rukhmini Bobde, counsel for the respondent-State