Sanction refusal under corruption law did not bar distinct IPC prosecution; Section 197 CrPC protection was unavailable for alleged evidence tampering.

Refusal of sanction under Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 did not bar prosecution for distinct Indian Penal Code offences, because sanction under that statute operates separately from Section 197 CrPC. The IPC allegations of criminal breach of trust, cheating, forgery, and destruction of evidence were supported by prima facie material and had independent ingredients, so they were legally severable from the corruption allegations. Section 197 CrPC was also inapplicable because the alleged tampering with digital evidence, deletion of records, and concealment of material were not acts done in discharge of official duty. The challenge to the summoning and revisional orders therefore failed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether refusal of sanction under Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 bars prosecution under the Indian Penal Code, 1860; (ii) whether the Indian Penal Code offences were so inextricably linked with the corruption allegations that they could not stand alone; (iii) whether sanction under Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 was required.

Issue (i): Whether refusal of sanction under Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 bars prosecution under the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

Analysis: The refusal of sanction was confined to the proposal placed under Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. No sanction was sought or decided upon under Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for the Indian Penal Code, 1860 offences. Sanction under the two provisions operates in distinct spheres, and refusal under the corruption statute does not create a blanket embargo on prosecution for independent penal offences.

Conclusion: The issue was answered in the negative.

Issue (ii): Whether the Indian Penal Code offences were so inextricably linked with the corruption allegations that they could not stand alone.

Analysis: The allegations under the Indian Penal Code, 1860 involved substantive offences such as criminal breach of trust, cheating, forgery, and destruction of evidence, supported by prima facie material including forensic indicators of deletion of data and concealment of documents. Those offences had independent ingredients and were legally severable from the misconduct alleged under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

Conclusion: The issue was answered in the negative.

Issue (iii): Whether sanction under Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 was required.

Analysis: The acts alleged, namely tampering with digital evidence, deletion of records, and concealment of material, were not acts done in the discharge of official duty. A reasonable nexus with official functions was absent, and the protection of Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 was therefore unavailable. Acts amounting to a cloak for independent criminal conduct do not attract the statutory bar.

Conclusion: The issue was answered in the negative.

Final Conclusion: The challenge to the summoning and revisional orders failed, as the prosecution under the Indian Penal Code, 1860 was not barred by the refusal of sanction under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 or by Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

Ratio Decidendi: Refusal of sanction for corruption offences does not bar prosecution for distinct Indian Penal Code offences, and sanction under Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 is required only where the alleged act bears a direct and reasonable nexus to official duty.

---