The State of Madhya Pradesh v. Ravi Shankar Singh & Ors.
Order
Criminal Appeal No(s). 2191-2192/2025
1. These Appeals are directed against the orders passed by the High
Court in the Writ Petition as well as in the Review Petition. While
dismissing the Writ Petition seeking quashing of the sanction
for prosecution granted by the Competent Authority under the
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 1 against the first respondent-
Ravi Shankar Singh, the High Court has issued certain directions
as contained in paragraphs 32 and 33 of the impugned order dated
08.05.2020.
2. Admittedly, the first respondent-accused has been acquitted of the
charges for committing the offences under Sections 7, 13(1)(d)
and 13(2) of the PC Act and, thus, the issue regarding validity of
the sanction has become infructuous. However, the appellant-State
is mainly aggrieved by certain directions which the High Court
has issued in paragraphs 32 and 33 of the impugned order dated
08.05.2020. Therefore, in the peculiar facts of the case, we have
proceeded to decide the issue concerning the High Court’s power
and jurisdiction to issue the nature of directions as contained in
paragraphs 32 and 33 of the impugned order.
3. The High Court vide impugned order dated 08.05.2020 has issued
the following directions:
“32. In our considered opinion, the advantage of recording
the evidence of the Sanctioning Authority U/S 311 CRPC,
before framing of charge, are as follows.
(a) The Court saves precious time if the evidence of
the Sanctioning Authority reveals that the Sanction
is bad either on account of it being passed by an
incompetent authority or passed without application
of mind which case, the accused can be discharged
and the charge-sheet returned to the investigating
agency.
1 For short, “the PC Act”
300 [2026] 7 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
(b) The investigating agency has the opportunity of
seeking fresh sanction and refiling the chargesheet
before the Trial Court.
(c) The accused does not get the benefit of autrefois
acquit/convict as charge has not been framed, and
(d) The accused cannot get the benefit of a seeking
quashment of the case on the ground of delayed trial,
which he may otherwise get if he is discharged by the
Trial Court at the end of the trial after a protracted
trial spanning over a decade.
33.(sic) In view of what we have discussed and held
hereinabove; we propose to lay down the following
guidelines to be followed by the learned trial court while
trying a case under the Prevention of Corruption Act.
(a) The trial court shall examine the sanctioning
authority exercising powers under section 311 CRPC
before framing charge, even if there is no challenge
to the same by the accused, as the validity of the
sanction order can to to the root of the case and
can render the very act of taking cognizance itself
void ab initio.
(b) If the trial court finds that the sanction passed in
consonance with the provisions of section 19 of the
PC Act on both the parameters of competence of the
sanctioning authority and application of mind on the
part of the sanctioning authority, then the trial court
shall proceed to the next stage and decide whether
charges should be framed against the accused after
hearing the prosecution and the defence.
(c) If the trial court is of the opinion that the sanction
order under section 19 of the PC Act is fundamentally
defective on either of the parameters, it shall
discharge the accused and return the chargesheet
to the investigating agency, which shall be at liberty
to file the chargesheet once again after seeking a
fresh sanction under section 19 of the PC Act.
The State of Madhya Pradesh v. Ravi Shankar Singh & Ors.
(d) These directions are prospective in nature and
shall not affect the proceedings in those cases where
the charges have been framed and evidence has
commenced before the trial court. It goes without
saying that these directions shall have no effect on
the inherent powers of the High Court under section
482 CRPC or its powers of revision under section
397 with 401 CRPC.”
4. Learned counsel for the appellant-State would submit that although
upon acquittal of the first respondent-accused, the present Criminal
Appeals have abated; however, the directions and guidelines issued
in paragraphs 32 and 33 by the High Court, as quoted above, will
create difficulties in perpetuity affecting all criminal trials not only under
PC Act but also in other serious offences. It is also argued that the
appellant-State moved the High Court by preferring a Review Petition
which also stands dismissed vide order dated 02.11.2020 in R.P. No.
1010/2020. It is further submitted that the High Court has wrongly
read and interpreted the provisions contained in Section 311 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure, 19732 for issuing the directions as if the
Court may examine a witness at any stage of the proceeding i.e., to
say even immediately after filing of the charge-sheet.
5. Mr. Naveen Kumar, learned counsel appearing for appellant-Kamta
Prasad in Criminal Appeal Nos. 2904-2905 of 2025 would support
the order/directions/guidelines issued by the High Court.
6. Learned counsel for the respondent(s) would submit that the
provisions contained in Section 311 of the Cr.PC itself provides
that the Court can exercise the power at any stage of any inquiry
or trial or other proceedings under the Cr.PC, therefore, issuance
of directions in consonance with the language of Section 311 Cr.PC
is fully justified.
7. The Cr.PC prescribes and provides for a complete procedure as to
the manner in which all kinds of trial will be conducted. They are
provided in Chapters XV to XXI. Thus, the stage of Section 311 of
the Cr.PC occurs under Chapter XXIV regarding general provisions
as to inquiries and trials. These general provisions cannot be read
2 For short, “the Cr.PC”
302 [2026] 7 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
into a step in conduct of trial so as to clothe a criminal court with
jurisdiction to bye-pass the procedure provided for conduct of trial
and evolve a new procedure and methodology for conducting trial by
examining the sanctioning authority even before framing of charge.
There is no such procedure provided in the Cr.PC where such step
can be made permissible. We are afraid, a new stage for trial cannot
be introduced by a judicial fiat. Trial in a criminal case including
in offences under the PC Act has to be conducted in the manner
provided for in the Cr.PC/ Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita read
with the provisions contained in the PC Act.
8. The High Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of
the Constitution of India cannot re-write the Cr.PC and direct all the
Sessions Courts/Special Courts under the PC Act to examine the
sanctioning authority even before framing of charge or commencement
of trial.
9. In the above view of the matter, we set aside the guidelines and
directions issued by the High Court in paragraphs 32 and 33 of the
impugned order dated 08.05.2020.
10. The Appeal, though infructuous upon acquittal of the accused, is
allowed to the above extent in respect of paragraphs 32 and 33 of
the impugned order dated 08.05.2020, by setting aside the same.
11. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
Criminal Appeal No(s). 2904-2905/2025
1. In view of the order passed in Criminal Appeal No(s).
2191-2192/2025, these Appeals also stand dismissed.
2. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
Result of the case: Criminal Appeal No(s). 2191-2192/2025 allowed.
Criminal Appeal No(s). 2904-2905/2025
dismissed.
†