Supreme Court quashes summons against public servant in corruption case: State of Punjab vs. Partap Singh Verka (2024)

Date of the Judgment: July 8, 2024

Citation: 2024 INSC 483

Judges: Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia and Justice Prasanna B. Varale.

Can a trial court summon a public servant for corruption offences based on evidence during trial, without prior government sanction? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this critical question in a case where a doctor was summoned mid-trial under Section 319 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC). The court clarified that prior sanction under Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 is mandatory before a public servant can be summoned as an accused in such cases. This judgment underscores the importance of procedural safeguards in cases involving public servants and corruption charges.

Case Background

On April 25, 2016, an FIR was registered against Dr. Partap Singh Verka (the respondent), a doctor at Guru Nanak Hospital, and Vikas, a ward attendant, under Sections 7 and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The complainant, Gurwinder Singh, alleged that Dr. Verka demanded a bribe of Rs. 10,000 through Vikas for admitting his brother, who was in jail, to the hospital. Further, on April 24, 2016, another Rs. 10,000 was demanded to continue his brother’s treatment. Gurwinder Singh then approached the Vigilance Bureau, which laid a trap. On April 25, 2016, Vikas was caught red-handed accepting Rs. 5,000 from the complainant in the hospital parking lot, and Dr. Verka was arrested from his office on the same day.

Both accused were granted bail in May 2016. A chargesheet was filed on December 22, 2016, but only against Vikas. Dr. Verka was not named as an accused in the chargesheet. However, during the trial, on May 12, 2017, the complainant, Gurwinder Singh (PW-1), testified that it was Dr. Verka who had demanded the bribe and that Vikas received the money on his behalf. Following this testimony, the Public Prosecutor requested the court to defer the hearing to file an application under Section 319 of the CrPC to summon Dr. Verka as an accused. The Trial Court allowed the application on May 20, 2017, summoning Dr. Verka to face trial.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The Trial Court summoned Dr. Partap Singh Verka under Section 319 of the CrPC based on the complainant’s testimony during the trial. Dr. Verka challenged this order before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, which set aside the Trial Court’s order. The High Court reasoned that the Trial Court had erred in summoning Dr. Verka without the necessary prior sanction under Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

Legal Framework

The core legal issue revolves around Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, which mandates that no court can take cognizance of offences punishable under Sections 7, 11, 13, and 15 of the Act against a public servant without the prior sanction of the appropriate government or authority. The relevant portion of Section 19 of the P.C Act is as follows:

“19. Previous sanction necessary for prosecution. —
(1) No court shall take cognizance of an offence punishable under sections 7, 11, 13 and 15 alleged to have been committed by a public servant, except with the previous sanction save as otherwise provided in the Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act, 2013 (1 of 2014) —
(a) in the case of a person who is employed, or as the case may be, was at the time of commission of the alleged offence employed in connection with the affairs of the Union and is not removable from his office save by or with the sanction of the Central Government, of that Government;
(b) in the case of a person who is employed, or as the case may be, was at the time of commission of the alleged offence employed in connection with the affairs of a State and is not removable from his office save by or with the sanction of the State Government, of that Government;
(c) in the case of any other person, of the authority competent to remove him from his office.”

This provision acts as a safeguard for public servants against frivolous or malicious prosecution. The sanction is required to ensure that public servants are not harassed by false accusations and can perform their duties without fear of baseless legal proceedings.

Arguments

State of Punjab’s Arguments:

• The State argued that no prior sanction was required under Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act because the Trial Court took cognizance of the offence under Section 319 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC), not initially.

Respondent’s Arguments:

• The respondent argued that prior sanction under Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act is mandatory before a court can take cognizance of an offence against a public servant, including when summoning under Section 319 of the CrPC.
• The respondent relied on the Supreme Court judgments in Dilawar Singh v. Parvinder Singh [(2005) 12 SCC 709] and Paul Varghese v. State of Kerala [(2007) 14 SCC 783], which held that Section 19 of the P.C Act has an overriding effect over the general provisions of the CrPC, including Section 319.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The primary issue before the Supreme Court was:

1. Whether a court can take cognizance of an offence under Sections 7, 11, 13, and 15 of the Prevention of Corruption Act against a public servant, based on an application under Section 319 of the Criminal Procedure Code, without prior sanction under Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act?

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The Supreme Court relied on the following authorities:

• Dilawar Singh v. Parvinder Singh [(2005) 12 SCC 709] – Supreme Court of India: This case established that Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act has an overriding effect over the general provisions of the CrPC, including Section 319. It held that prior sanction is mandatory for taking cognizance of offences under the P.C Act against a public servant.
• Paul Varghese v. State of Kerala [(2007) 14 SCC 783] – Supreme Court of India: This case reiterated the principle laid down in Dilawar Singh, emphasizing that Section 319 of the CrPC cannot override the mandatory requirement of sanction under Section 19 of the P.C Act.
• Surinderjit Singh Mand v. State of Punjab (2016) 8 SCC 722 – Supreme Court of India: This case, while dealing with sanction under Section 197 of the CrPC, reinforced the mandatory nature of prior sanction under both Section 197 of the CrPC and Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, highlighting that courts cannot take cognizance without such sanction.
• Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988: This section mandates that no court shall take cognizance of an offence punishable under Sections 7, 11, 13 and 15 of the Act against a public servant without the previous sanction of the competent authority.
• Section 319 of the Criminal Procedure Code: This section allows a court to summon any person as an accused if it appears from the evidence that such person has committed an offence.

Judgment

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• The Supreme Court followed Dilawar Singh v. Parvinder Singh [(2005) 12 SCC 709]*, reiterating that Section 19 of the P.C Act creates a complete bar on the power of the court to take cognizance of an offence under the P.C Act against a public servant without prior sanction.
• The Supreme Court also followed Paul Varghese v. State of Kerala [(2007) 14 SCC 783]*, which reaffirmed the principle that Section 319 of the CrPC cannot override the mandatory requirement of sanction under Section 19 of the P.C Act.
• The Supreme Court referred to Surinderjit Singh Mand v. State of Punjab (2016) 8 SCC 722* to emphasize the mandatory nature of prior sanction under both Section 197 of the CrPC and Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily driven by the need to uphold the mandatory nature of Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The Court emphasized that procedural safeguards for public servants are crucial to prevent harassment and ensure fair application of the law. The Court’s reasoning also focused on maintaining the rule of law by ensuring that statutory requirements are strictly followed. The judgments in Dilawar Singh v. Parvinder Singh [(2005) 12 SCC 709] and Paul Varghese v. State of Kerala [(2007) 14 SCC 783] weighed heavily on the Court’s mind, as they clearly established the precedence of Section 19 of the P.C Act over Section 319 of the CrPC. The Court also considered the need to ensure that public servants are not subjected to frivolous or malicious prosecutions, which could hinder their ability to perform public duties effectively.

Logical Reasoning:

The Court considered the argument that Section 319 of the CrPC allows the court to summon any person as an accused if it appears from the evidence that such person has committed an offence. However, the Court rejected this argument, emphasizing that this power is subject to the limitations imposed by Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act. The Court noted that the purpose of Section 19 is to protect public servants from harassment and ensure that they are not subjected to frivolous or malicious prosecutions. The Court also considered the potential implications of its decision for future cases, emphasizing the need for strict adherence to procedural safeguards.

The Supreme Court’s decision was unanimous. The Court held that the Trial Court erred in summoning Dr. Partap Singh Verka without prior sanction under Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act. The Court found that the High Court was correct in setting aside the Trial Court’s order. The Court emphasized that the correct procedure should have been for the prosecution to obtain sanction under Section 19 of the P.C Act from the appropriate Government before moving an application under Section 319 of the CrPC. The Court stated that in absence of the sanction, the entire procedure remains flawed.

“The law declared by this Court emerging from the judgments referred to hereinabove, leaves no room for any doubt that under Section 197 of the Code and/or sanction mandated under a special statute (as postulated under Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act) would be a necessary prerequisite before a court of competent jurisdiction takes cognizance of an offence (whether under the Penal Code, or under the special statutory enactment concerned).”

“The mandate is clear and unambiguous that a court “shall not” take cognizance without sanction. The same needs no further elaboration. Therefore, a court just cannot take cognizance without sanction by the appropriate authority.”

“Here, the correct procedure should have been for the prosecution to obtain sanction under Section 19 of the P.C Act from the appropriate Government, before formally moving an application before the Court under Section 319 of CrPC. In fact, the Trial Court too should have insisted on the prior sanction, which it did not. In absence of the sanction the entire procedure remains flawed.”

Key Takeaways

• Prior sanction under Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act is mandatory before a court can summon a public servant as an accused for offences under Sections 7, 11, 13, and 15 of the Act, even under Section 319 of the CrPC.
• Section 19 of the P.C Act has an overriding effect over the general provisions of the CrPC, including Section 319.
• The prosecution must obtain the necessary sanction from the appropriate government or authority before moving an application under Section 319 of the CrPC to summon a public servant in a corruption case.
• Trial Courts must insist on prior sanction before taking cognizance of offences under the P.C Act against public servants.
• This judgment reinforces the procedural safeguards for public servants, ensuring protection against frivolous or malicious prosecutions.

Directions

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal filed by the State of Punjab, thereby upholding the decision of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that prior sanction under Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act is a mandatory prerequisite for taking cognizance of offences under Sections 7, 11, 13, and 15 of the Act against a public servant, even when the court is exercising its power under Section 319 of the CrPC. This judgment reinforces the existing legal position that Section 19 of the P.C Act has an overriding effect over the general provisions of the CrPC. There is no change in the previous position of the law, but this judgment reiterates and clarifies the mandatory nature of prior sanction in such cases.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s judgment in State of Punjab vs. Partap Singh Verka clarifies that prior sanction under Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act is mandatory before a court can summon a public servant as an accused for offences under the Act, even when using powers under Section 319 of the Criminal Procedure Code. This decision reinforces the procedural safeguards for public servants and ensures that they are not subjected to unwarranted legal proceedings without the necessary prior approval from the competent authority. The judgment emphasizes the importance of adhering to statutory requirements and upholding the rule of law in cases involving public servants and corruption charges.