State of Punjab vs. Partap Singh Verka [July 08, 2024]
Citation: 2024 INSC 483; Criminal Appeal No. 1943 of 2024; [2024] 7 S.C.R. 65
Background and Facts
This case addressed the interplay between Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (PC Act) and Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC). Dr. Partap Singh Verka, a public servant, was implicated in a corruption case involving allegations of demanding and accepting bribes for admitting a prisoner to a hospital and extending his treatment. An FIR was registered against Dr. Verka and another accused under Sections 7 and 13(2) of the PC Act. While the initial charge sheet named only the co-accused, the complainant’s testimony during trial implicated Dr. Verka, prompting the State to file an application under Section 319 CrPC to summon him as an additional accused.
The trial court allowed the application and summoned Dr. Verka. He challenged this before the Punjab and Haryana High Court, which quashed the order, citing the absence of prior sanction under Section 19 of the PC Act—a mandatory precondition for prosecuting a public servant. The State of Punjab appealed to the Supreme Court.
Key Issues
Whether a court can summon a public servant as an accused under Section 319 CrPC for offences under the PC Act without obtaining prior sanction as required by Section 19 of the Act.
Whether Section 319 CrPC overrides the mandatory requirement of prior sanction under Section 19 of the PC Act.
Supreme Court’s Analysis and Findings
The Supreme Court held that Section 19 of the PC Act is mandatory and acts as a bar on courts from taking cognizance of offences under Sections 7, 11, 13, and 15 of the Act against a public servant without prior sanction from the appropriate authority.
The words and phrases used in Section 19(1) are clear and unequivocal: no court shall take cognizance of such offences against a public servant except with previous sanction.
The Court clarified that even when a person is sought to be summoned as an additional accused during trial under Section 319 CrPC, the requirement of prior sanction under Section 19 cannot be bypassed. Section 19 overrides Section 319 CrPC in such cases.
The correct procedure should have been for the prosecution to first obtain sanction from the competent government authority before moving an application under Section 319 CrPC to summon the respondent.
The trial court’s failure to insist on prior sanction rendered the entire process flawed. The High Court was correct in setting aside the trial court’s order, and there was no ground for Supreme Court interference.
Conclusion and Significance
The Supreme Court dismissed the State’s appeal, affirming that no court can proceed against a public servant for offences under the PC Act without prior sanction, even when additional accused are summoned under Section 319 CrPC.
The judgment reinforces that procedural safeguards for public servants under anti-corruption laws are mandatory and must be strictly followed.
The decision clarifies the primacy of Section 19 of the PC Act over Section 319 CrPC and ensures that prosecution of public servants for corruption cannot proceed without proper governmental sanction.
This ruling is significant for criminal jurisprudence involving public servants, setting a clear precedent on the necessity of prior sanction before prosecution under the Prevention of Corruption Act.
RELATED Blog
0 comments