Court Rules that Failure to Specifically Mention Section 4-H in Sanction Order Does Not Invalidate Charges Against Public Servants in Rs. 3.4 Crore Boundary Wall Scam
In a significant judgment delivered on September 28, 2026, the Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court, Srinagar Bench, dismissed the petition filed by four public servants of the Central Public Works Department (CPWD) challenging the framing of charges against them in a high-profile corruption case. The petitioners-serving as Executive Engineer and Assistant Executive Engineers-were accused of conspiring with a contractor to cause wrongful loss to the public exchequer amounting to Rs. 3.4 crore, related to defective and incomplete construction work on a 9.1-km boundary wall for the Central University of Kashmir, Ganderbal.
The controversy centered around the validity of the sanction order for prosecution under Section 4-H of the Jammu & Kashmir Prevention of Corruption Act, 2006. The petitioners argued that since the sanction order did not specifically mention Section 4-H, the charge was unsustainable and should be quashed. They contended that the statutory sanctioning authority's discretion could not be presumed or supplemented by the Trial Court at the charge framing stage.
However, the High Court, led by Mr. Justice Sanjay Parihar, relied on an earlier judgment by a coordinate Bench in a related petition arising from the same FIR, which had already upheld the framing of charges under similar facts and issues. The Court reaffirmed that mere omission to specifically mention the penal provision in the sanction order does not vitiate the sanction if the allegations and materials therein disclose the ingredients of the offence. This principle was supported by precedents from the Supreme Court, including Prakash Singh Badal v. State of Punjab (2007) and State of Bihar v. Raj Mangal Ram (2014).
The Court emphasized that framing of charge requires the Trial Court to apply its mind to the material on record, and that the absence of specific mention of Section 4-H in the sanction order does not go to the root of the jurisdiction of the Court. The judgment noted the petitioners' failure to distinguish their case from the co-accused whose petition was already dismissed, reinforcing judicial discipline by adhering to the principle of consistency in judgments involving the same factual matrix.
The allegations detailed in the FIR included defective construction in multiple columns and wall panels, non-adherence to approved specifications, and passing of bills for incomplete and substandard work, causing a substantial loss to the public exchequer. The petitioners were charged under various provisions including criminal conspiracy (Section 120-B), cheating (Section 420 of the RPC), and multiple sections of the J&K Prevention of Corruption Act.
By dismissing the petition, the High Court has allowed the trial against the accused to proceed, marking a firm stance against corruption in public works and reinforcing the legal rigor in sanction and charge framing procedures in anti-corruption cases.
Bottom Line:
Prevention of Corruption - Framing of charge - Mere omission to specifically mention Section 4-H of J&K Prevention of Corruption Act in sanction order does not vitiate charge, if allegations and material in sanction otherwise disclose ingredients of said offence - Co-ordinate Bench decision in same FIR held binding where facts and issues are identical.
Statutory provision(s):
Jammu & Kashmir Prevention of Corruption Act Sections 4-H, 5(2), 5(1)(d), Criminal Procedure Code Section 173, Indian Penal Code Sections 120-B, 420
