Previous sanction for cognizance must be distinct from prosecution sanction before corruption and customs charges can proceed.

Previous sanction was required before a court could take cognizance of offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act and the Customs Act. The sanction on record was described as competent for cognizance, but its operative part authorised prosecution only. Because a sanction for prosecution is distinct from a sanction for taking cognizance, it could not satisfy the statutory requirement. The charges under Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and Section 136(1) of the Customs Act were therefore set aside, while the charge under Section 477A of the Indian Penal Code remained undisturbed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the charge under Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and Section 136(1) of the Customs Act could stand when the sanction granted was for prosecution and not for taking cognizance.

Analysis: The statutory scheme required previous sanction before a court could take cognizance of offences under the relevant provisions. The sanction placed on record described the authority as competent to accord sanction for cognizance, but the operative part granted sanction for prosecution only. A sanction for prosecution was treated as distinct from a sanction for taking cognizance, and one could not substitute for the other. In the absence of the required sanction for cognizance, the foundation for proceeding on those counts was lacking.

Conclusion: The charges under Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and Section 136(1) of the Customs Act were set aside, while the charge under Section 477A of the Indian Penal Code remained undisturbed.

---