Valid sanction by competent authority is essential; retrospective or unauthorised sanction cannot sustain cognizance under anti-corruption law.

Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act requires previous sanction from the authority competent to remove the public servant, and a sanction issued by an incompetent officer is not a curable irregularity. Where service rules vested appointment and removal powers in the Board of Directors, sanctions issued by the Company Secretary and later by the Chairman and Managing Director, without Board authorisation, were defective; the later sanction was also retrospective and came after cognizance. The document states that such defects left the prosecution without valid sanction at the time cognizance was taken, rendering the cognizance without jurisdiction.

---

---

Issues: Whether the prosecution could validly proceed when the sanction for prosecution was granted by an authority not competent under the governing service rules and was later issued retrospectively after cognizance had already been taken.

Analysis: Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 bars cognizance of offences under the Act except with previous sanction of the authority competent to remove the public servant from office. The service rules vested the power of appointment and removal in the Board of Directors, but the first sanction was issued by the Company Secretary and the second by the Chairman and Managing Director without reference to any Board resolution authorising either of them. The second sanction was also retrospective and came after cognizance had already been taken. These defects were not treated as mere irregularities, because the sanctioning authority itself lacked competence and the absence of valid sanction existed when cognizance was taken.

Conclusion: The sanction was invalid and the cognizance taken by the Special Judge was without jurisdiction, so the challenge failed and the respondent remained protected from the defective prosecution as initiated.

---