Jurisdictionally void prosecution sanction and withdrawn general consent bar a fresh curative sanction in corruption proceedings.

Sanction for prosecution under the Prevention of Corruption Act is valid only when granted by an authority competent to remove the public servant; a sanction issued by an authority subordinate to the appointing authority is jurisdictionally void and cannot be saved by departmental notification. Although a defective sanction may sometimes be cured by obtaining a fresh one, that is unavailable where general consent under the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act has been withdrawn, because the investigating agency then lacks authority to initiate a new exercise of power for concluded matters. The discharge was therefore sustained and the proceedings finally terminated.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether a sanction for prosecution granted by an authority subordinate to the appointing authority was valid under the constitutional and statutory scheme. (ii) Whether a fresh sanction could be obtained after withdrawal of general consent under the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946.

Issue (i): Whether a sanction for prosecution granted by an authority subordinate to the appointing authority was valid under the constitutional and statutory scheme.

Analysis: The requirement of sanction under Section 19(1)(c) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 is tied to competence of the authority to remove the public servant, and therefore operates in harmony with Article 311(1) of the Constitution of India. Where the sanction is granted by an authority subordinate to the appointing authority, the defect is not a mere irregularity but one going to the root of jurisdiction. Departmental notifications cannot override this constitutional limitation. The sanction in issue was therefore void ab initio.

Conclusion: The sanction was invalid and the discharge could not be faulted on that ground.

Issue (ii): Whether a fresh sanction could be obtained after withdrawal of general consent under the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946.

Analysis: Although a defective sanction may ordinarily be capable of being cured by obtaining a fresh sanction, that course presupposes the continuing competence of the investigating agency to initiate the necessary fresh exercise of jurisdiction. Once general consent under Section 6 of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 stood withdrawn, the agency was divested of authority to undertake a new substantive exercise of power within the State in respect of concluded matters. In that situation, a fresh sanction was not a permissible curative step.

Conclusion: A fresh sanction was barred and the defect was incurable in the facts of the case.

Final Conclusion: The revisional challenge failed, the discharge order was sustained, and the criminal proceedings stood finally terminated.

Ratio Decidendi: A sanction for prosecution granted by an authority subordinate to the appointing authority is jurisdictionally void, and where the investigating agency has been divested of power by withdrawal of general consent, a fresh sanction cannot be obtained to cure that defect.

---