Valid sanction is mandatory in corruption prosecutions; without it, cognizance is void and conviction cannot stand.

Section 19(1) of the Prevention of Corruption Act makes previous sanction of the competent authority mandatory for cognizance of offences under Sections 7, 10, 11, 13 and 15, and an invalid sanction goes to the root of jurisdiction. A prosecution launched without valid sanction is a nullity, and the defect cannot be cured at the trial stage by relying on the bar against reversal unless failure of justice is shown. The objection to the competence of the sanctioning authority may be raised even in appeal, but appellate protection under Section 19(3) and Section 465 CrPC applies only where the defect has not caused failure of justice.

---

---

Issues: Whether, in the absence of a valid sanction under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, the court could take cognizance and sustain the conviction, and whether the defect in sanction could be cured by invoking the statutory bar against reversal absent failure of justice.

Analysis: Section 19(1) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 is mandatory and bars cognizance of offences under Sections 7, 10, 11, 13 and 15 except with previous sanction of the competent authority. The validity of sanction goes to the root of jurisdiction, and a prosecution launched without such sanction is a nullity. Sub-section (3) of Section 19 and Section 465 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 operate at the appellate stage and prevent reversal only where no failure of justice has occurred; they do not authorise a Special Judge to proceed on an invalid sanction. The objection regarding competence of the sanctioning authority can be raised even at a later stage, including appeal, and the absence of valid sanction renders the trial non est.

Conclusion: The conviction could not be sustained because the sanction was invalid and the trial court lacked jurisdiction to take cognizance.

Final Conclusion: The appeal was allowed and the High Court's judgment of conviction was set aside, leaving no basis to sustain the appellant's conviction.

Ratio Decidendi: A prosecution for corruption offences cannot validly proceed without sanction from the competent authority, and an invalid sanction deprives the court of jurisdiction to take cognizance; appellate protection for errors in sanction applies only where the defect has not caused failure of justice.

---