The Nagpur Bench of the Bombay High Court recently upheld the discharge of a Talathi accused in a bribery case, ruling that the sanction for prosecution under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, was invalid as it was not granted by the competent authority. However, the Court also clarified that the State has the liberty to obtain a valid sanction and initiate a fresh trial.
The case involved the State of Maharashtra, through the Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB), challenging an order dated 29 December 2022 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge-1, Khamgaon, in Special ACB Case No. 14 of 2015. The respondent, Sanjay Mahadeo Ingle, a Talathi appointed on 9 July 2015 in Buldhana district, was accused of demanding a bribe of ₹2,000 to process a land mutation. The complainant, unwilling to pay the bribe, approached the ACB, which laid a trap and caught Ingle red-handed.
Read Also:-Bombay High Court Ruling on Land Sale Dispute: Unstamped Agreements Cannot Support Injunction Orders
After the completion of investigation, a chargesheet was filed upon obtaining a sanction from the Sub-Divisional Officer (SDO). However, the respondent moved for discharge, arguing that the SDO lacked the authority to grant such a sanction since the appointment authority was the District Collector. The Special Court initially rejected the discharge application but was directed by the High Court to reconsider it, following which the discharge was allowed on the ground of invalid sanction.
The State, represented by Additional Public Prosecutor Shri M.J. Khan, contended that the discharge application was not maintainable after framing of the charge and that the Special Court had misinterpreted the Supreme Court’s decision in Nanjappa vs. State of Karnataka (2015). It was argued that, once the charge is framed, the court can only convict or acquit the accused and that the validity of sanction should be tested during trial.
Read Also:-Bombay High Court Dismisses Plea to Quash FIR Over Emoji Reaction to Operation Sindoor Posts
The respondent’s counsel, however, referred to the Supreme Court’s rulings in Nanjappa and Ratilal Bhanji Mithani, asserting that the absence of a valid sanction renders the trial void and the prosecution unsustainable. It was also argued that sanction by the competent authority is a sine qua non for prosecution under Section 19 of the PC Act.
Justice Urmila Joshi-Phalke, while delivering the judgment on 25 July 2025, held that under Section 19(1) of the PC Act, no court can take cognizance of an offence against a public servant without prior sanction from the authority competent to remove the person from service. In this case, the SDO merely posted the respondent, while the Collector appointed him, making the sanction issued by the SDO invalid.
Quoting the Supreme Court’s observation in Nanjappa, the Court stated, The question regarding validity of sanction can be raised at any stage of proceeding... even before an appellate court. It was also noted that absence of valid sanction goes to the root of the case and renders the trial non-est in the eyes of law.
Read Also:-Bombay High Court: Wife's Allegation of Husband's Impotency in Divorce Plea Not Defamation
While maintaining the discharge, the Court granted the State liberty to obtain a fresh and valid sanction from the competent authority. Justice Joshi-Phalke remarked, Corruption allegations against public servants are serious in nature. Discharge on procedural grounds should not result in impunity. A second trial is not barred upon obtaining a valid sanction.
Case Title: State of Maharashtra v Sanjay [CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.283 OF 2023]