ACB Draft Does Not Vitiate PC Act Sanction: Rajasthan HC

Sanction Order Not Vitiated by ACB Draft When Authority Independently Weighed Evidence: Rajasthan High Court

Published: 18 October 2026 · NyayVidhan

The Rajasthan High Court dismissed an Environment Engineer's writ petition against the sanction to prosecute him under the Prevention of Corruption Act. The Anti Corruption Bureau had sent a draft sanction order, but the sanctioning authority had weighed the witnesses' evidence and the documents, and its order was not a verbatim copy of the draft (paras 6, 15). Trivial errors in dates and names caused no failure of justice, so the cognizance order stood (paras 12, 16-17).

Key holdings

A draft sent by the ACB does not by itself vitiate sanction where the order is no verbatim copy and weighs the evidence (paras 6, 15).

The ACB may place all relevant facts before the authority, but may not instruct it to grant sanction (para 10).

Typographical slips in dates or names in a sanction order are not fatal without a failure of justice (paras 12-13).

The High Court examined the sanction itself as the trial court had not considered the same prayer at the charge stage (para 6).

Whether sanction was needed after a change of office by the date of cognizance is for the trial Judge (para 14).

Case explainer by NyayVidhan: an account of this judgment and the law it laid down, not the court's text. The judgment itself is the authoritative version.

Brief Facts

A mine operator complained to the Anti Corruption Bureau (ACB) on 19.12.2019 that the Regional Officer and the petitioner, the Environmental Engineer of the Rajasthan State Pollution Control Board, had demanded money for a ‘consent to operate’ order (para 2). In the trap the co-accused was caught; the petitioner escaped, but on other material he too was suspected of an offence under Section 7 of the P.C. Act (para 2). The ACB sent the Board's Chairman the investigation material with a draft sanction order, asking him to decide independently (para 2). Sanction was granted on 28.04.2020 and cognizance taken on 09.02.2021; on 10.05.2022 the trial court deferred his plea against the sanction until charges were framed (para 1).

Court's Findings

As the trial court had not considered the identical prayer at the stage of hearing on charge, the High Court examined the sanction itself (para 6). The sanctioning authority looked beyond the FIR and, in its order, weighed the witnesses' evidence and the documents collected by the ACB (para 6). Unlike the draft, the order did not open each paragraph with ‘it was brought to the notice’ and was no verbatim reproduction of it (para 6). State of Karnataka v. Ameer Jan was distinguished: here the request letter, the gist of the witness statements and the conclusion of investigation were placed before the authority, and its order was a speaking one (para 7). Nothing showed that the authority acted under obligation, compulsion or constraint (para 8). Unlike in Manish Mathur, the ACB had not instructed the authority to grant sanction but asked it to apply an independent mind (para 10). Slips such as 20.01.2019 for 20.01.2020, and a witness-name discrepancy left for trial, do not affect a sanction unless they cause a failure of justice, which was not shown (paras 11-13, 15).

Legal Principle

A sanction under Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act is not vitiated merely because the investigating agency sent a draft order, if the order shows that the authority itself scrutinised the evidence and applied an independent mind. Trivial errors in a sanction order do not invalidate it unless they cause a failure of justice (paras 12-13, 15).

Precedents Relied Upon

Central Bureau of Investigation v. Ashok Kumar Aggarwal (2014) 14 SCC 295
Relied Upon Discussed at ¶ 5, 13
A mere error or irregularity in a sanction is not fatal unless it has resulted in a failure of justice; the order must show that the authority considered the evidence and material placed before it. Also cited by the State on leaving the validity of sanction to the trial.
State of Karnataka v. Ameer Jan (2007) 11 SCC 273
Distinguished Discussed at ¶ 7
The sanction order must demonstrate proper application of mind, and the entire record should be placed before the authority; distinguished as the request letter and the gist of the evidence were placed before the authority here and its order was a speaking one.
Mansukhlal Vithaldas Chauhan v. State of Gujarat (1997) 7 SCC 622
Distinguished Discussed at ¶ 8
The sanctioning authority must apply its own independent mind, free of pressure, obligation or compulsion; no material showed any such constraint here.

View all precedents (6)

Himanshu Yadav v. State of Rajasthan
Distinguished Discussed at ¶ 9
Judgment of the Rajasthan High Court: a sanction order must reflect consideration of the relevant material and application of mind; the order here did.
Manish Mathur v. State of Rajasthan
Distinguished Discussed at ¶ 10
Judgment of the Rajasthan High Court: the ACB may communicate the relevant facts but cannot instruct the grant of sanction through a drafted document; here the ACB asked the authority to apply an independent mind.
L. Narayana Swamy v. State of Karnataka and Ors. (2016) 9 SCC 598
Referred To Discussed at ¶ 14
Sanction is required only if the accused continues in the same office on the date of cognizance; the question was left to the trial Judge.

Statutory Provisions