No Sanction, No Trial: Bombay High Court Quashes Corruption Case Against Government Officer

When the Government Itself Finds No Case, the Court Cannot Assume Jurisdiction –  In a decision that reinforces the fundamental requirement of sanction for prosecuting public servants, the Bombay High Court (Nagpur Bench) has quashed the corruption case against Prakash Natkar, an Assistant Block Development Officer accused of bribery. The Court held that the prosecution cannot proceed in the absence of prior approval from the competent authority, as mandated under Section 19(1) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
Justice Urmila Joshi-Phalke, delivering the judgment, made it clear that cognizance taken without sanction is legally untenable. She observed, "The mandate of Section 19(1) of the Prevention of Corruption Act is clear and unambiguous—a court ‘shall not’ take cognizance of an offence without sanction. The entire procedure remains flawed when prosecution is launched in the absence of this fundamental requirement."
By setting aside the trial court’s refusal to discharge the accused, the High Court reaffirmed that public servants cannot be subjected to arbitrary prosecutions when the competent authority itself has found no basis for charges.
The corruption case originated in 2015, when the Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB) conducted a trap operation in Yavatmal, Maharashtra. A complaint was filed by Sachin Bhagat, who alleged that a cashier at the Panchayat Samiti, Mohsin Khan, had demanded ₹4,000 as a bribe to process a payment of ₹27,990 for data entry work. During the trap, Khan was caught red-handed accepting ₹2,000 from the complainant.
Prakash Natkar, serving as an Assistant Block Development Officer, was also named in the case, but there was no direct evidence of him demanding or accepting any bribe. When the investigating officer sought sanction from the Government of Maharashtra’s Gram Vikas and Water Conservation Department to prosecute Natkar, the Deputy Secretary of the department reviewed the evidence and refused to grant approval, stating that no prima facie case was made out.
Despite this clear refusal, the ACB made another request for sanction, which was again denied. Undeterred, the prosecution filed a chargesheet against Natkar without sanction, leading to the trial court taking cognizance of the case in clear violation of legal provisions.
Natkar moved the Special (ACB) Court in Yavatmal, arguing that the absence of sanction made the entire proceeding unlawful, but his discharge application was rejected in January 2022. He then approached the Bombay High Court in a criminal revision application.
After reviewing the case records and legal precedents, the High Court found that the trial court’s refusal to discharge the accused was contrary to law.
Justice Urmila Joshi-Phalke stated, "The government’s refusal to grant sanction was final unless revoked by the competent authority itself. In the absence of sanction, the Special Court had no jurisdiction to proceed with the case. Sanction is not a mere formality but a safeguard to protect public servants from frivolous or politically motivated prosecution."
Rejecting the prosecution’s argument that sanction is a matter of trial, the Court ruled, "The requirement of prior sanction is not procedural but jurisdictional. Without sanction, the very foundation of prosecution collapses, rendering the entire proceeding void ab initio."
The Court observed that the government had reviewed the evidence twice and found no reason to prosecute Natkar, and held that the trial court erred in proceeding with the case despite this clear position from the competent authority.
The Bombay High Court relied on multiple Supreme Court judgments to reinforce its findings.
Referring to State of Himachal Pradesh v. Nishant Saree (2011 AIR SC 404), the Court noted that the requirement of sanction is not just a procedural step but a safeguard to prevent abuse of the legal process. Citing Nanjappa v. State of Karnataka (2015 ALL MR (Cri) 3318), the Court reiterated that if prosecution is initiated without sanction, the trial is rendered null and void.
The Court also referred to State of Punjab v. Partap Singh Verka (AIR 2024 SC 3299), where the Supreme Court ruled that when the competent authority refuses to grant sanction, the court cannot assume jurisdiction to try the case. It further cited Ashoo Surendranath Tewari v. The Deputy Superintendent of Police, CBI (2020(9) SCC 636), which held that when an accused has been exonerated in a departmental inquiry, criminal prosecution on the same charges is generally not permissible.
Quashing the trial court’s order refusing to discharge the accused, the Bombay High Court ruled, "The prosecution of a public servant without sanction is an abuse of legal process. Cognizance taken without approval is non est in law and cannot be sustained. The trial court should have appreciated this legal position and granted the discharge application."
Setting aside the Special ACB Court’s order dated January 31, 2022, the Court discharged Prakash Natkar from all charges in Crime No. 3302/2015, stating that the trial could not proceed in the absence of statutory sanction.
The Bombay High Court’s ruling in Prakash Natkar v. State of Maharashtra serves as a strong precedent in corruption cases involving public servants, reaffirming that:
"Sanction under Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act is not a mere formality but a mandatory safeguard. When sanction is denied, courts have no jurisdiction to take cognizance of corruption charges against a public servant."
Justice Urmila Joshi-Phalke, in her concluding remarks, emphasized, "The law does not permit courts to assume jurisdiction where none exists. The trial court's order refusing discharge was legally unsustainable, and this Court finds no reason to allow an illegality to persist."
With this ruling, Prakash Natkar’s nine-year-long legal battle ends with his exoneration, and the judgment sends a strong message that procedural safeguards cannot be ignored in anti-corruption cases.
 

Date of Decision: 17 March 2025