Last Updated on January 22, 2026 by Satish Mishra

Prosecution sanction under the Prevention of Corruption (PC) Act is mandatory prior government approval required to prosecute a public servant for corruption offenses (Sections 7, 10, 11, 13, 15), ensuring accountability while protecting against frivolous cases, granted by the Central/State Govt or appointing authority who had power to remove the servant at the time of the offense. It involves the authority applying its mind to evidence, with courts ensuring proper procedure, though Section 19 doesn’t apply if the servant is out of office when cognizance is taken, unlike Section 197 CrPC.

Sanction under PC Act, 1988 (Section 19)

Purpose: To safeguard public servants from malicious or vexatious prosecutions, balancing accountability with protection

Requirement: No court can take cognizance of offenses under Sections 7 (bribery), 10 (abettment of bribery), 11 (obtaining valuable thing without consideration), 13 (criminal misconduct), or 15 (habitual bribery) without prior sanction.

Who Grants It: The Central Government, State Government, or the authority competent to remove the public servant from office.

Determining Authority: If unsure, the sanction comes from the authority that could remove the servant at the time the offense occurred.

CBI court cannot accept the crime against accused Jaswinder Kaur because the Chandigarh Police Search, which is the competent authority in the matter, has rejected the prosecution penalty. Refusal by UT DIG to sanction the prosecution of suspended SHO Jaswinder Kaur in a 2017 corruption trial, a special CBI court on Wednesday disposed of the application seeking its inclusion as accused.

Process & Principles

Application of Mind: The sanctioning authority must genuinely apply its mind to the facts and evidence (FIR, statements, draft charge sheet); it cannot be a rubber stamp.
Evidence of Application: The sanction order should ideally show relevant materials were placed and considered.
Timelines: Governments strive to decide on sanction proposals within three months, with a possible one-month extension for legal consultation.
No Shield for Corruption: Sanction is a safeguard, not a shield; courts can invalidate it if there’s non-application of mind, allowing fresh proceedings

Distinction from CrPC Section 197

PC Act (Sec 19): Sanction required for specific corruption offenses; generally not needed if the public servant is no longer in service when the court takes cognizance.
CrPC (Sec 197): Applies to offenses committed by public servants in discharge or purported discharge of official duty; required even if the person is out of service.

Facts of the case

The corruption case at issue dates back to October 2017, when SI Mohan Singh was arrested for accepting Rs 2 lakh in bribe, allegedly in the direction of Jaswinder Kaur, the then Sector 31 SHO. Bisht had alleged that the SI, who was the investigating officer in an attempted murder case, requested that Rs 9 lakh drop from the FIR the names of three of his staff members.

Also read: SHO Suspended, Notice to CBI and DIG Chandigarh

The CBI had arrested the SI while taking Rs 2 lakh bribe, but the case was closed against Kaur as the agency could find no proof to include her, leading Bisht to apply first in 2019 and then again in February of this year. The corruption-tainted SHO had surrendered from May of this year in another Rs 5 lakh bribery case before a Chandigarh court on July 25. She is in judicial detention at this time.

Also read: High Court orders CBI probe in Arrest Case of Doctor

Legal Issue

Whether court can take cognizance of the offence against the proposed accused?
Whether CBI or complainant has the liberty to move the appropriate authority/Supreme Court against the DIG’s order?

Legal Standpoint

It is not the responsibility of the competent authority to see if at the point of granting or refusing penalty for prosecution there is ample evidence for the conviction or acquittal of the said accused. The question of new evidence did not arise as the competent authority had not previously passed a sanction order and this was the first time the authority had to consider the facts of the case.

Prem Singh Bisht corroborated the substance of his complaint verbatim, arguing that his testimony was not accepted by the DIG. Bisht told the cold the DIG did not find the specifics of the call between him, the SHO and the SI, which confirmed his allegations and court deposition.

Also read: CASE TRANSFER TO CBI BY HIGH COURT CHANDIGARH

He added that he also met the accused SI and then the SI’s meeting with Kaur on CCTV footage but the DIG did not find this scientific evidence. The complainant reiterated that a face-to – face conversation had taken place between him, SHO Kaur and Sub-inspector (SI) Mohan Singh, where Kaur had asked him to fulfill the Rs 9 lakh bribe demand.

Conclusion

Sushil Kumar Garg, Special Judge, CBI heading the case claimed that the court could not recognize the offense against the proposed accused Jaswinder Kaur as the prosecution permission was refused by the Chandigarh Police DIG, which is the competent authority in the case. The CBI or the applicant has the right to transfer the relevant authority / Supreme Court against the DIG’s order of 3 August 2020.

Taking note of UT DIG’s refusal to allow the prosecution of suspended SHO Jaswinder Kaur in a 2017 corruption trial, Wednesday a special CBI court ruled the application seeking her inclusion as the accused person.

For case specific advice on criminal matters, one may contact top/best expert Criminal Lawyers in Chandigarh Panchkula Mohali Zirakpur Derabassi Kharar Mullanpur Baltana.

Post Written by – Research Team of LegalSeva (LawFirm) of Satish Mishra Advocate. Responses from Google’s AI Overview included in Post.

Disclaimer: This is for informational purposes only. Consult a qualified lawyer for advice specific to your case.

More on 99888-17966.