Court holds that repeated attempts to question validity of prosecution sanction after prior dismissal amount to forum shopping; delay in sanction not ground for quashing proceedings
In a significant judgment dated October 13, 2026, the Allahabad High Court (Lucknow Bench), presided over by Justice Subhash Vidyarthi, dismissed the petition filed by Hemant Kumar Prasad challenging the validity of prosecution sanction granted by the State Bank of India (SBI) for his prosecution in a multi-crore corruption case. The Court underscored that the petitioner's repeated attempts to reopen the issue of sanction after a Division Bench had already dismissed a writ petition on the same grounds amounted to forum shopping and a gross abuse of the process of law.
The case relates to allegations of fraudulent transactions involving export bills worth over Rs. 7.4 crore during Hemant Kumar Prasad's tenure as branch manager at SBI's erstwhile State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur branch. The Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), after investigation, filed a charge-sheet against the petitioner and others for offences under various sections of the Indian Penal Code and the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
The prosecution sanction for initiating criminal proceedings against the petitioner was granted by the General Manager (Network-III) and Appointing Authority of SBI on September 29, 2021, following due process as per the bank's vigilance manual and guidelines issued by the Department of Personnel and Training (DoPT), Government of India. The petitioner challenged this sanction order through a writ petition which was dismissed by a Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court in June 2026.
Following this, the petitioner filed multiple applications before the trial court and the High Court once again, seeking to quash the prosecution on the grounds of non-application of mind by the sanctioning authority, delay in sanction beyond the statutory period, and procedural irregularities. The trial court rejected these applications, leaving the question of the validity of the sanction open for determination based on evidence during trial.
The High Court in its judgment reiterated the settled legal position that once a prosecution sanction order exists, challenges to its validity on grounds such as non-application of mind, bias, or improper procedure are to be examined during the trial itself and not at the threshold by way of quashing petitions under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code or writ jurisdiction. The Court relied on authoritative Supreme Court judgments including Prakash Singh Badal v. State of Punjab, Dinesh Kumar v. Chairman, Airport Authority of India, and Vijay Rajmohan v. CBI, emphasizing that delay in sanction beyond the prescribed period does not automatically vitiate the prosecution proceedings but only renders the sanctioning authority accountable.
Further, the Court examined the testimony of the sanctioning authority who had independently applied his mind to the materials before granting sanction, and held that procedural aspects involving vigilance department's role and typing of the sanction order on vigilance letterhead did not indicate absence of independent mind of the authority.
The Court also noted that the petitioner had ample opportunity to challenge the sanction order before the Division Bench and, having failed there, was estopped from raising the same issue repeatedly before the trial court or in fresh petitions, which amounted to abuse of process. The petition was accordingly dismissed with a cost of Rs. 50,000 to be deposited for the benefit of a Children's Home in Lucknow.
This judgment reinforces the principle that challenges to prosecution sanction in corruption cases are primarily factual and to be adjudicated during trial, discouraging litigants from resorting to repetitive litigation aimed at delaying proceedings. It also clarifies that delay in granting prosecution sanction, while undesirable, is not a valid ground for quashing criminal proceedings.
Bottom Line:
Prevention of Corruption Act - Challenge to validity of prosecution sanction after earlier dismissal of writ petition on same issue - Validity of sanction where sanction order exists and plea of non-application of mind/prejudice ordinarily to be examined during trial on basis of evidence - Re-agitating same issue before trial court and again under Section 528 BNSS/Section 482 Cr.P.C. amounts to forum shopping and abuse of process - Delay in grant of sanction beyond prescribed period by itself not a ground to quash criminal proceedings.
Statutory provision(s):
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 Section 19; Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 Section 528; Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 Sections 207, 226, 482
