Section 19 sanction under the corruption law applies only when the accused still holds the allegedly misused office at cognizance.

Sanction under Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act was held unnecessary where cognizance was taken against public servants who no longer held the offices allegedly abused. The Court reaffirmed that the relevant inquiry is whether the accused still occupied the same office on the date cognizance is taken, and rejected the view that sanction is required merely because the accused remained a public servant in another capacity. It also confirmed that A.R. Antulay correctly stated the law, that Section 19(2) addresses only the competent sanctioning authority where sanction is otherwise needed, and that literal, per incuriam, and anti-frivolous-prosecution arguments did not justify departing from the settled construction.

---

---

Issues: Whether sanction under Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 was necessary before taking cognizance against public servants who, at the time of cognizance, were holding offices different from the offices allegedly abused.

Analysis: The Court reaffirmed the settled construction of Section 19 that the relevant inquiry is whether the accused continues to hold the office alleged to have been misused on the date cognizance is taken. It held that the earlier decision in A.R. Antulay was not obiter and that its interpretation had been consistently followed. The Court rejected the contention that Section 19(2) required sanction merely because the accused remained a public servant in some other capacity, holding that the clause deals with doubt only as to the competent authority where sanction is otherwise required. The Court also rejected arguments based on literal interpretation, per incuriam, and the supposed need to protect public servants from frivolous prosecution, holding that these did not justify departing from the established construction.

Conclusion: Sanction under Section 19 was not required because the appellants were being prosecuted for alleged abuse of offices different from those they held when cognizance was taken.

---