Previous sanction requirement does not extend to abetment under the Prevention of Corruption Act where Section 12 is omitted from the sanction clause.

Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 requires previous sanction only for the offences expressly named in that provision, namely Sections 7, 10, 11, 13 and 15. Section 12 creates a distinct offence of abetment and is not included in that list, so the sanction requirement cannot be extended to it by interpretation. The omission is deliberate on the statutory text, and the court cannot rewrite the provision to enlarge the sanction bar. Previous sanction is therefore not required before taking cognizance under Section 12.

---

---

Issues: Whether previous sanction under Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 is required before taking cognizance of an offence under Section 12 of that Act against a public servant.

Analysis: Section 19(1) expressly makes previous sanction a condition precedent only for offences punishable under Sections 7, 10, 11, 13 and 15. Section 12, which creates a distinct offence of abetment of offences under Sections 7 or 11, is not included in that list. The statutory language was clear and unambiguous, leaving no scope to read Section 12 into Section 19. Supplying such an omission would amount to rewriting the provision and impermissibly enlarging the sanction requirement by judicial interpretation.

Conclusion: Previous sanction was not required for taking cognizance of an offence under Section 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, and the contrary view was unsustainable.

Final Conclusion: The sanction bar under Section 19 does not extend to prosecution for abetment under Section 12, so cognizance could be taken without prior sanction.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a sanction provision expressly names specified offences, the court cannot add an omitted offence by interpretation; the exclusion of Section 12 from Section 19 means no previous sanction is needed for cognizance under Section 12.

---