Previous sanction necessary for prosecution
Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 deals with previous sanction necessary for prosecution. No court shall take cognizance of an offence punishable under [sections 7, 11, 13 and 15] alleged to have been committed by a public servant, except with the previous sanction [save as otherwise provided in the Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act, 2013 (1 of 2014)]-- (a) in the case of a person [who is employ The Act came into force on 09 Sep 1988.
(1) No court shall take cognizance of an offence punishable under 1[sections 7, 11, 13 and 15] alleged to have been committed by a public servant, except with the previous sanction 2[save as otherwise provided in the Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act, 2013 (1 of 2014)]--
(a) in the case of a person 3[who is employed, or as the case may be, was at the time of commission of the alleged offence employed] in connection with the affairs of the Union and is not removable from his office save by or with the sanction of the Central Government, of that Government;
(b) in the case of a person 3[who is employed, or as the case may be, was at the time of commission of the alleged offence employed] in connection with the affairs of a State and is not removable from his office save by or with the sanction of the State Government, of that Government;
(c) in the case of any other person, of the authority competent to remove him from his office:
4[Provided that no request can be made, by a person other than a police officer or an officer of an investigation agency or other law enforcement authority, to the appropriate Government or competent authority, as the case may be, for the previous sanction of such Government or authority for taking cognizance by the court of any of the offences specified in this sub-section, unless--
(i) such person has filed a complaint in a competent court about the alleged offences for which the public servant is sought to be prosecuted; and
(ii) the court has not dismissed the complaint under section 203 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974) and directed the complainant to obtain the sanction for prosecution against the public servant for further proceeding:
Provided further that in the case of request from the person other than a police officer or an officer of an investigation agency or other law enforcement authority, the appropriate Government or competent authority shall not accord sanction to prosecute a public servant without providing an opportunity of being heard to the concerned public servant:
Provided also that the appropriate Government or any competent authority shall, after the receipt of the proposal requiring sanction for prosecution of a public servant under this sub-section, endeavour to convey the decision on such proposal within a period of three months from the date of its receipt:
Provided also that in case where, for the purpose of grant of sanction for prosecution, legal consultation is required, such period may, for the reasons to be recorded in writing, be extended by a further period of one month:
Provided also that the Central Government may, for the purpose of sanction for prosecution of a public servant, prescribe such guidelines as it considers necessary.
Explanation.--For the purposes of sub-section (1), the expression "public servant" includes such person--
(a) who has ceased to hold the office during which the offence is alleged to have been committed; or
(b) who has ceased to hold the office during which the offence is alleged to have been committed and is holding an office other than the office during which the offence is alleged to have been committed.]
(2) Where for any reason whatsoever any doubt arises as to whether the previous sanction as required under sub-section (1) should be given by the Central Government or the State Government or any other authority, such sanction shall be given by that Government or authority which would have been competent to remove the public servant from his office at the time when the offence was alleged to have been committed.
(3) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974),--
(a) no finding, sentence or order passed by a special Judge shall be reversed or altered by a Court in appeal, confirmation or revision on the ground of the absence of, or any error, omission or irregularity in, the sanction required under sub-section (1), unless in the opinion of that court, a failure of justice has in fact been occasioned thereby;
(b) no court shall stay the proceedings under this Act on the ground of any error, omission or irregularity in the sanction granted by the authority, unless it is satisfied that such error, omission or irregularity has resulted in a failure of justice;
(c) no court shall stay the proceedings under this Act on any other ground and no court shall exercise the powers of revision in relation to any interlocutory order passed in any inquiry, trial, appeal or other proceedings.
(4) In determining under sub-section (3) whether the absence of, or any error, omission or irregularity in, such sanction has occasioned or resulted in a failure of justice the court shall have regard to the fact whether the objection could and should have been raised at any earlier stage in the proceedings.
Explanation.--For the purposes of this section,--
(a) error includes competency of the authority to grant sanction;
(b) a sanction required for prosecution includes reference to any requirement that the prosecution shall be at the instance of a specified authority or with the sanction of a specified person or any requirement of a similar nature.
Section 19, The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (Act 49 of 1988).
Cross-references
Extracted from the operative text of the enactments themselves. Every destination below exists in our corpus.
This section refers to
Related judgements & precedents
These are some judgments that construed this section, and hold precedence value. They hold authority on how to read, interpret and use this section.
-
Subramanian Swamy v. Manmohan Singh
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
A private citizen may file a complaint of corruption against a public servant. PC Act s.19 sanction is a condition for taking cognizance, not for investigation; the competent authority must take a sanction decision within about three months (extendable by one month for legal advice). Inaction / delay is subject to judicial review. CA 1193/2012, Judgment order-4.pdf 31 January 2012.
On this section: s.19 sanction is for taking cognizance, not investigation; competent authority must decide in about three months. Private complaint maintainable.
-
The State of Kerala vs K. Ajith
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Elected representatives cannot claim immunity from criminal law on grounds of parliamentary privilege. Acts of destruction of public property committed by MLAs during protest inside the legislative assembly are not protected under Article 194 of the Constitution as they do not constitute essential legislative functions or proceedings of the House. The Public Prosecutor's power to withdraw prosecution under Section 321 CrPC must be exercised in furtherance of broad ends of public justice, and the court's supervisory function requires it to ensure that the application is made in good faith and does not suffer from improprieties or illegalities that would cause manifest injustice. Prior sanction of the Speaker is not required for prosecution of MLAs for offences committed within the assembly except where specifically mandated by statute such as Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act. The gravity of offence involving destruction of public property and its impact on public life must be considered when determining whether withdrawal of prosecution subserves administration of justice.
On this section: Previous sanction necessary for prosecution of public servants; Court held that MPs require sanction of Speaker for prosecution under this section
-
State of Uttarakhand vs Yogendra Nath Arora
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
The authority competent to grant prosecution sanction under Section 19(1)(c) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 for a public servant accused of corruption is the authority competent to remove the public servant from service, not merely from a particular office. In the case of a deputed employee, where the power to repatriate is distinct from the power to remove from service, only the authority possessing the power to remove from service (typically the parent organization) is competent to grant prosecution sanction, even if the corrupt act was committed while performing duties for the deputing organization. Repatriation constitutes a change of posting or transfer, not removal from office within the meaning of Section 19(1)(c).
On this section: Requirement of prior sanction for prosecution of public servants; core provision interpreting competent authority for granting sanction based on power to remove from office
-
State Th. Cbi vs Parmeshwaran Subramani
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Section 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, which provides for punishment of abetment of offences under Sections 7 or 11, is not listed in Section 19 of the Act. By virtue of this express omission, the legislature's intention is that previous sanction as required under Section 19 is not necessary for taking cognizance of an offence punishable under Section 12. Courts cannot, through interpretation, read Section 12 into the ambit of Section 19, as this would amount to rewriting the statute. When statutory language is clear and unambiguous, the courts must apply literal interpretation and cannot add words or supply omissions except in cases of clear necessity found within the four corners of the statute itself.
On this section: Central statutory provision requiring previous sanction for prosecution; interpreted in light of expressio unius principle that omission of Section 12 indicates legislative intent
-
State of M. P. vs Anand Mohan & ANR
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When power to grant sanction for prosecution of public servants under the Prevention of Corruption Act has been delegated to the Department of Law and Legislative Affairs through a statutory rule amendment published in the Official Gazette, the Administrative or Departmental authority from which the public servant is removable cannot retain or exercise concurrent power to decline such sanction. The statutory rule amendment prevails over any conflicting executive instruction or circular, and a later clarificatory circular merely explains the scope of already-delegated authority rather than conferring new power. The competence of the sanctioning authority is determined by the legal delegation of power, not by the temporal proximity of the power-delegation to the alleged commission of the offence.
On this section: Requires previous sanction for prosecution of public servants in respect of offences under Sections 7, 10, 11, 13 and 15. Court analyzed which authority is competent to grant such sanction based on removability of public servant.
-
Ranvir Singh vs State of Haryana
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
A second complaint on the same cause of action and between the same parties is legally maintainable even after dismissal of an earlier complaint, provided the earlier complaint was dismissed not on merits following inquiry under Section 202-203 CrPC, but on account of procedural default by the complainant such as failure to pay process fees. The bar to entertaining a second complaint applies only when the first complaint has been dismissed on merits after a full inquiry by the Magistrate, except in the exceptional circumstances enumerated in Pramatha Nath Talukdar v. Saroj Ranjan Sarkar (AIR 1962 SC 876), namely: (i) where the previous order was passed on an incomplete record; (ii) on a misunderstanding of the nature of the complaint; (iii) where it was manifestly absurd, unjust, fallacious or false; or (iv) where new facts which could not with reasonable diligence have been brought on record in the previous proceeding have been adduced. When a complaint is dismissed merely for procedural default and not on merits, a fresh complaint on the same facts is permissible as it is a different action from attempting to recall or review the earlier order of dismissal, which is prohibited under Section 362 CrPC.
On this section: Requirement of sanction for prosecution under Prevention of Corruption Act; discussed as potential bar to complaint but not analyzed as overriding CrPC provisions on multiple complaints
-
State of Gujarat vs K V Joseph
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
A High Court cannot issue detailed administrative directions to government agencies regarding prosecution procedures, declare statutory rules ultra vires without proper notice and hearing to affected parties, or threaten contempt proceedings against administrative authorities for procedural delays. The proper remedy for concerns about arbitrary withdrawal of prosecutions or procedural irregularities is referral to appropriate administrative institutions such as the Central Vigilance Commission, not judicial usurpation of administrative functions. Judicial pronouncements must adhere to principles of restraint, temperate language, natural justice, and procedural propriety.
On this section: Core statute analyzed regarding the proper procedure for granting sanction for prosecution and the authority of sanctioning authority once sanction is accorded
The holding above is the ratio decidendi as extracted from the judgment by eCourts India, reproduced unaltered — it is a rendering of the court's reasoning, not a substitute for its words. Read the order itself before relying on it.
Judgments citing this section
These may be obiter dicta or a precedent, for you to study. These are the judgments where this section is quoted.
-
… Srinivasa Reddy (A-2), Assistant General Manager, State Bank of India, Ananthpur Regional Office, Ananthpur, Andhra Pradesh and Shri Kuppa Srinivas (A-3), Chief Manager & Relationship Manager, State Bank of India, Anaparthi East, Godavari District, Andhra Pradesh, from the competent authority as mandated u/s 19(1)(c) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. 4. The draft Articles of Charges and draft statements of imputation together with list of witnesses, list of documents, copies of statements of witnesses and copies of documents, for initiating departmental proceedings for imposition of major penalty against the …
-
… Leave Granted. 2. Two important questions of law arise for consideration in this appeal. The first question is whether an order of the Appointing Authority granting sanction for prosecution of a public servant under Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 19881, would be rendered illegal on the ground of acting as per dictation if it consults the Central Vigilance Commission for its decision. The second question is whether the period of three months (extendable Digitally signed by ARJUN BISHT Date: 2022.10.11 17:04:06 IST …
-
… It is submitted that reliance placed upon Anil Kumar (supra) to submit that prior sanction is required for directions under Section 156(3) of the Code is erroneous since, the findings therein pertained specifically to sanction under Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (PC Act) and not with respect to the provisions of the Code. Further, the said findings are contrary to settled law establishing that proceedings under Section 156(3) of the Code would not amount to taking cognizance and has been doubted in Manju Surana (supra) . The …
Questions about Section 19
What have the courts held on Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act?
Subramanian Swamy v. Manmohan Singh (31 Jan 2012) is the leading judgment on this section among those set out below: s.19 sanction is for taking cognizance, not investigation; competent authority must decide in about three months. Private complaint maintainable. Another 6 judgments on this section are set out below, all of them from the Supreme Court. They run from 2000 to 2021.
How do I find court cases under Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act?
In judgments and charge sheets this section is written several ways, and each form finds a different set of orders. These search the full text of every order eCourtsIndia holds, best matches first: PC Act 19, section 19 PC Act, section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act. Each opens the full list of orders on eCourtsIndia, where it can be narrowed by court, year and outcome. 7 reported judgments on this section are set out on this page, beginning with Subramanian Swamy v. Manmohan Singh (31 Jan 2012).
What should I read with Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, and has it changed?
Its own text turns on section 7 (Offence relating to public servant being bribed), section 11 (Public servant obtaining undue advantage, without consideration from person concerned in proceeding or business transacted by such public servant), section 13 (Criminal misconduct by a public servant), section 15 (Punishment for attempt), so none of them can safely be read on its own. 2 other provisions in this corpus refer back to it.
When did Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act come into force?
Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, cited as PC Act 19, came into force on 09 Sep 1988, having been enacted on 09 Sep 1988. It is in force as at the date shown on this page.
Other sections of this Act
- 17A. Enquiry or Inquiry or investigation of offences relatable to recommendations made or decision taken by public servant in discharge of official functions or duties1666 words
- 2. Definitions716 words
- 9. Offence relating to bribing a public servant by a commercial organisation532 words
- 6. Power to try summarily374 words
- 5. Procedure and powers of special Judge368 words
- 7. Offence relating to public servant being bribed340 words
Source and method. Compiled from the enactments of Parliament and of the State legislatures as published on India Code, and republished together with commentary and other original matter under section 52(1)(q)(ii) of the Copyright Act, 1957. Structured, cross-referenced and maintained by eCourtsIndia. Text as in force on 15 Oct 2026. This page is not a substitute for legal advice.