Cognizance Taken Without Sanction Violates Amended Prevention of Corruption Act; Orders Set Aside for Fresh Proceedings
In a significant ruling, the Allahabad High Court has set aside the orders of cognizance against Dina Nath Jauhar, the retired Vice-Chancellor of Dr. Bhim Rao Ambedkar University, Agra. The Court found that the cognizance was taken without obtaining the mandatory prior sanction required under Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, as amended by Act No. 16 of 2018.
Justice Nand Prabha Shukla, presiding over the matter, highlighted the necessity of obtaining a sanction even for retired public servants when cognizance is taken after the enforcement of the 2018 amendment. The amendment, which became effective from July 26, 2018, mandates prior sanction for prosecution in corruption cases involving public servants, irrespective of their retirement status.
The case originated from allegations of financial irregularities during Jauhar's tenure as Vice-Chancellor, leading to an FIR lodged on September 4, 2018. Despite the retirement of Jauhar in 2013, the High Court underscored that the amendment applies prospectively, governing all prosecutions initiated after its commencement date.
Justice Shukla critiqued the denial of sanction by the competent authority on the erroneous belief that Jauhar's retired status exempted him from such requirements. This oversight, the Court opined, resulted in a failure of justice, necessitating the quashing of the orders dated August 28, 2025, and October 17, 2025, by the Special Judge (Anti-Corruption), Meerut.
The Court directed the prosecution to procure a fresh sanction within six weeks, following which the trial court must issue a new cognizance order, aligning with legal provisions. The decision aligns with precedents set by the Supreme Court, emphasizing the importance of examining sanction irregularities to prevent justice failures.
The ruling reinforces the stringent compliance required under the amended Prevention of Corruption Act, ensuring that all procedural safeguards are observed, particularly the necessity of sanction for prosecuting retired public servants. The case has been remitted for fresh proceedings, ensuring adherence to the amended legal framework.
Bottom Line :
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 Section 19 as amended by Act 16 of 2018 - Previous sanction for prosecution is mandatory even in case of a retired public servant if cognizance is taken after the 2018 amendment came into force - Cognizance taken without such sanction suffers from failure of justice and is liable to be set aside.
Statutory provision(s): Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 Section 19 (as amended by Act No. 16 of 2018), Sections 166, 120-B IPC, Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) 2023 Section 528
Dina Nath Jauhar v. State of U.P., (All) : Law Finder Doc id # 2985886
