2025 (7) TMI 1626 - HC - Indian Laws

Refusal of sanction under PC Act Section 19 doesn't bar IPC prosecution if offences are independent

Rajesh Kumar Versus Central Bureau of Investigation.

Rajesh Kumar Versus Central Bureau of Investigation. - 2025:PHHC:086179 ISSUES: Whether the refusal of sanction under Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act (PC Act) bars prosecution under the Indian Penal Code (IPC)?Whether the offences under the IPC are inextricably linked to allegations under the PC Act and cannot stand alone'Whether sanction under Section 197 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.) was required in the facts of the present case? RULINGS / HOLDINGS: Refusal of sanction under Section 19 of the PC Act does not operate as a blanket bar on prosecution under provisions of the IPC, provided the ingredients of those offences are independently satisfied. The refusal was limited to prosecution under the PC Act only.The offences under the IPC, including breach of trust, forgery, falsification of digital records, and destruction of evidence, involve distinct ingredients legally severable from the misconduct alleged under the PC Act and are supported by prima facie evidence; therefore, they can stand alone.Sanction under Section 197 of the Cr.P.C. is not required where the alleged acts are not committed in the discharge of official duty but are contrary to it. The acts of tampering with digital evidence, deletion of records, and concealment of documents were held to be in derogation of official duty and thus outside the protection of Section 197. RATIONALE: The Court applied the legal framework distinguishing the scope of Section 19 of the PC Act and Section 197 of the Cr.P.C., relying on authoritative Supreme Court precedents including A. Sreenivasa Reddy Vs. Rakesh Sharma, which clarify that refusal of sanction under the PC Act does not bar independent prosecution under the IPC.The Court distinguished the present case from precedents where IPC offences were limited to conspiracy linked to PC Act allegations, emphasizing that substantive IPC offences supported by forensic evidence constitute separate offences.The Court relied on the principle that Section 197 protection applies only where acts are 'directly and reasonably connected with official duty,' citing judgments such as G.C. Manjunath & Others Vs. Seetaram and D. Devaraja Vs. Owais Sabeer Hussain, to hold that acts constituting deliberate tampering and deletion of evidence fall outside official duty and thus do not attract the sanction requirement.The Court rejected the petitioner's reliance on Section 197 protection, holding that the acts alleged were a 'cloak to justify independent criminal acts,' and thus sanction was not a jurisdictional prerequisite.