https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=293281 Sanction under Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act was held unnecessary where cognizance was taken against public servants who no longer held the offices allegedly abused. The Court reaffirmed that the relevant inquiry is whether the accused still occupied the same office on the date cognizance is taken, and rejected the view that sanction is required merely because the accused remained a public servant in another capacity. It also confirmed that A.R. Antulay correctly stated the law, that Section 19(2) addresses only the competent sanctioning authority where sanction is otherwise needed, and that literal, per incuriam, and anti-frivolous-prosecution arguments did not justify departing from the settled construction. en-us Mon, 04 Jul 2011 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 17 Mar 2026 11:07:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=293281 Sanction under Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act was held unnecessary where cognizance was taken against public servants who no longer held the offices allegedly abused. The Court reaffirmed that the relevant inquiry is whether the accused still occupied the same office on the date cognizance is taken, and rejected the view that sanction is required merely because the accused remained a public servant in another capacity. It also confirmed that A.R. Antulay correctly stated the law, that Section 19(2) addresses only the competent sanctioning authority where sanction is otherwise needed, and that literal, per incuriam, and anti-frivolous-prosecution arguments did not justify departing from the settled construction. Case-Laws Indian Laws Mon, 04 Jul 2011 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=293281