The Lucknow Bench of the Allahabad High Court has set aside an order passed by a Special Judge (Prevention of Corruption Act), Court No. 6, Lucknow, in the ongoing corruption case against retired IAS officer Mohd. Abdul Aleem Khan. Justice Shree Prakash Singh delivered the ruling on 25 August 2025, holding that the trial court's reliance on the idea of "deemed sanction" was legally unsustainable.
Background
Khan, who retired in 2009, was accused of possessing disproportionate assets. A vigilance inquiry was initiated in 2015, and an FIR was lodged in October 2019 under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. In January 2023, the Governor of Uttar Pradesh granted sanction for prosecution.
However, the High Court had already quashed that sanction in December 2024, noting that under law only the Central Government could authorize prosecution of an All India Services officer. The Governor formally cancelled the sanction in March 2025.
Despite this, the Special Judge on 25 July 2025 fixed a date in October to consider the issue of "deemed sanction" and made certain remarks against senior counsel for the accused, prompting the fresh petition under Section 482 CrPC.
Court's Observations
The High Court noted that Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act requires explicit sanction from the competent authority before a court can take cognizance of offences against public servants.
Read also:- Himachal Pradesh High Court Allows Kamla Devi's Plea, Condones 403-Day Delay in Appeal Filing
"There is no provision with respect to the deemed sanction of prosecution," Justice Singh observed,
Emphasizing that courts cannot read into the law what Parliament has not enacted.
The bench also referred to the Supreme Court's recent decision in Suneeti Toteja v. State of U.P. (2025), which made it clear that the absence of sanction by the proper authority vitiates the very initiation of criminal proceedings. The Judge remarked that reliance by the trial court on certain passages from Subramanian Swamy v. Manmohan Singh was misplaced, as those were only suggestions for Parliament, not binding precedent.
Read also:- Supreme Court Rejects Rajan’s Plea in 1998 Sirsa Murder Case, Flags Delay in Uploading HC Verdict
On the trial court's adverse remarks against senior counsel, Justice Singh cited Neeraj Garg v. Sarita Rani (2021), stressing that
"Judges must exercise restraint and avoid unnecessary remarks on the conduct of counsel which may have no bearing on adjudication."
He termed the comments harsh and unwarranted.
Decision
Concluding that the trial court erred both in law and tone, the High Court quashed the order dated 25 July 2025.
"The impugned order…is hereby set aside," the bench ruled.
At the same time, it left the door open for future proceedings:
"Liberty is granted to the trial court concerned to revive the proceedings, if sanction for prosecution is granted by the appropriate Government, in accordance with law."
With this, the corruption trial against Khan stands stalled unless and until the Central Government grants fresh sanction.
Case Title: Mohd. Abdul Aleem Khan v. State of U.P. through Addl.
Case No.: Application U/s 482 No. 6937 of 2025
Date of Decision: 25 August 2025
