State of Punjab vs. Hari Kesh, Criminal Appeal arising out of SLP (Criminal) No. 9114 of 2019
- ByPravleen Kaur --
- 15 Jun 2025 --
- 0 Comments
The Supreme Court of India, in State of Punjab vs. Hari Kesh [Criminal Appeal arising out of SLP (Criminal) No. 9114 of 2019, decided January 7, 2025], set aside the Punjab and Haryana High Court’s order quashing a sanction order under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, and restored the prosecution proceedings against Hari Kesh.
Facts and Background
Hari Kesh was prosecuted under Sections 7 and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. The prosecution was initially challenged on the ground that the sanction to prosecute was either not granted by the competent authority or was invalid. The Punjab and Haryana High Court quashed the sanction order and the consequent criminal proceedings in May 2019, relying on the alleged procedural irregularity regarding the authority granting sanction.
The State of Punjab appealed to the Supreme Court, contending that the High Court erred in quashing the sanction order when the trial had already commenced and the prosecution had examined several witnesses.
Legal Issues
Whether the High Court was justified in quashing the sanction order and criminal proceedings at an advanced stage of trial.
The scope of judicial interference with sanction orders under Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act.
The evidentiary nature of the competence of the authority granting sanction.
Supreme Court’s Reasoning and Findings
The Supreme Court held that the High Court committed a gross error by quashing the sanction order and proceedings without being satisfied that a failure of justice had occurred due to any error, irregularity, or invalidity in granting the sanction. The Court emphasized the settled legal position that courts should not interfere with sanction orders unless the failure of justice is apparent.
The bench noted that the petition for quashing was filed after the trial had commenced and after the prosecution had examined seven witnesses. The Court observed that whether the sanction was granted by the competent authority is a matter of evidence to be proved during the trial and not a ground for pre-trial quashing, especially at an advanced stage.
Relying on the Explanation to Section 19(4) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, the Court clarified that “error” includes the competence of the authority granting sanction, but such issues are to be examined in the trial, not through premature quashing.
The Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s order and restored the proceedings before the Special Court, directing the trial to continue from the stage it was stopped. The Court expressly refrained from commenting on the merits of the case and allowed the accused to raise all legally permissible contentions regarding sanction during the trial.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court’s judgment reaffirms that:
Quashing of sanction orders is an exceptional remedy and should only be exercised when failure of justice is clearly established.
Judicial restraint is necessary to prevent premature termination of prosecution, particularly after trial commencement.
The competence of the authority granting sanction is an evidentiary issue to be decided during trial.
The accused retains the right to challenge the sanction’s validity during trial proceedings.
This ruling strengthens procedural safeguards in corruption cases, ensuring that technical objections do not derail substantive justice.
Citation
State of Punjab vs. Hari Kesh, Criminal Appeal arising out of SLP (Criminal) No. 9114 of 2019, Supreme Court of India, Judgment dated January 7, 2025 [2025 INSC 50].
RELATED Blog
0 comments