THE BEYOND OBITER LAW BLOG: Legal News
2 min read
The Supreme Court has held that High Courts, while exercising their jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, cannot direct all Sessions Courts and Special Courts under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, to examine the sanctioning authority before framing charges or commencement of trial. Setting aside the directions issued by the Madhya Pradesh High Court, the Court observed that “a new stage for trial cannot be introduced by a judicial fiat.”
The judgment was delivered by a Bench comprising Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra and Justice Atul S. Chandurkar while allowing appeals filed by the State of Madhya Pradesh against the High Court's directions issued in a writ petition challenging the validity of sanction granted for prosecution under Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act.
Although the High Court had dismissed the writ petition seeking quashing of the sanction, it proceeded to issue prospective guidelines requiring trial courts to examine the sanctioning authority under Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure before framing charges. It directed trial courts to assess whether the sanction had been granted by a competent authority and whether there had been proper application of mind. If the sanction was found fundamentally defective, the trial court was directed to discharge the accused and permit the investigating agency to obtain a fresh sanction before refiling the charge sheet.
Challenging these directions, the State argued that the High Court had effectively introduced an entirely new procedural stage not contemplated by the Code of Criminal Procedure. It contended that such directions would unnecessarily complicate criminal trials under the Prevention of Corruption Act and could have wider ramifications for prosecutions in other serious offences.
Accepting the State’s contention, the Supreme Court held that Section 311 CrPC forms part of the general provisions relating to inquiries and trials and merely empowers a criminal court to summon or examine witnesses if their evidence is essential for a just decision. The provision, the Court clarified, cannot be invoked to mandate the examination of the sanctioning authority before charges are framed.
The Bench observed that neither the Code of Criminal Procedure nor the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita provides for such a procedural stage. Therefore, the High Court could not, by exercising its writ jurisdiction, prescribe a procedure that effectively modifies the statutory framework governing criminal trials.
The Court observed:
“The High Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot re-write the Cr.P.C. and direct all the Sessions Courts/Special Courts under the PC Act to examine the sanctioning authority even before framing of charge or commencement of trial.”
Emphasising that criminal trials must strictly adhere to the procedure enacted by Parliament, the Bench further stated:
“There is no such procedure provided in the Cr.P.C. where such step can be made permissible. We are afraid, a new stage for trial cannot be introduced by a judicial fiat. Trial in a criminal case including in offences under the PC Act has to be conducted in the manner provided for in the Cr.P.C./Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita read with the provisions contained in the PC Act.”
Accordingly, the Supreme Court set aside the guidelines and directions issued by the Madhya Pradesh High Court, reiterating that courts cannot supplement or alter the legislatively prescribed procedure for criminal trials through judicial directions.