Valid prosecution sanction under corruption law upheld; defect, if any, was only an irregularity and no ground for discharge.

An order refusing discharge under Section 227 CrPC was not interfered with because the sanction objection failed on the legal basis that Section 137(1) of the Customs Act applies only to offences under Sections 132, 133, 134, 135 and 135-A, while the alleged offences were under the IPC and the Prevention of Corruption Act. The corruption sanction was issued under Section 19(1)(c) by the authority competent to remove the accused, and the record showed he was under the Central Excise establishment when sanction was granted. At most, any defect was an irregularity, not absence of sanction, and that point could not justify discharge.

---

---

Issues: Whether the order rejecting discharge under Section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 was liable to be interfered with on the ground that the sanction for prosecution was invalid or incompetent.

Analysis: The challenge to the sanction failed on two fronts. First, the requirement of previous sanction under Section 137(1) of the Customs Act, 1962 applies only to offences under Sections 132, 133, 134, 135 and 135-A of that Act, whereas the alleged offences in the case were under the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Second, the sanction for the corruption offence was granted under Section 19(1)(c) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 by the authority competent to remove the petitioner. The materials placed showed that, as on the date of sanction, the petitioner was under the Central Excise establishment, and at most any defect in the sanction would amount to an alleged irregularity rather than absence of sanction. Such a contention could not succeed at the stage of discharge.

Conclusion: The sanction was held to be valid for the purpose of prosecution, and the refusal to discharge the petitioner was upheld.

---