# Mohd. Abdul Aleem Khan v. State of U.P

- **Citation:** (2025) 8 ILRA 120
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2025-08-25
- **Case number:** Application U/S 482 No. 6937 of 2025
- **Bench:** Shree Prakash Singh
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/mohd-abdul-aleem-khan-v-state-of-u-p-53718
- **Pages:** 11

## Headnote

Pertains to sec 19 of the Act, 1988; whether the
sanction is deemed sanction or not

Headnotes
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (as
amended by Act of 2018)-sec.19; Code
of
Criminal
Procedure-sec.197-The
sanction granted by the State -Government
was declared non est -the sanction order was
quashed -and it was opened to the applicant
that in case any sanction is granted by the
Government of India-then the same can be
agitated before this Court-Court below passed
the impugned order for further orders- for
taking decision with respect to deemed
sanction-there is no provision with respect to
the deemed sanction of prosecution u/s 19impugned
order
set
aside-Application
allowed. (E-9)
Held:
The provision of Section 19 of the Act, 1988 is
para materia to the provision of section 197
Cr.P.C. to the effect and meaning of that there
is no provision of 'deemed sanction'. More-so,
Section 197 of Cr.P.C. is liberal than Section 19
of the Act, 1988, on the pretext that the
provisions of Section 197 of Cr.P.C. opens an
exception regarding an accused who was
deployed, under some official duty.

Case Law Cited
1.Dr. Subramanian Swamy Vs. Dr. Manmohan
Singh reported in [AIR 2012 SC 1185]

## Text

120 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Strategy for Grant of Bail (supra) and
other judgments discussed hereinabove.

48. The court places on record its
sincere appreciation for the valuable
assistance rendered by Shri Satyaveer
Singh, learned Amicus Curiae.

49. Reverting to the merits of the
present case, it stands admitted that the
charge sheet has been filed without the
arrest of the applicant. Learned counsel for
the applicant has confined his submission
to a limited prayer- that the trial court be
directed not to remand the applicant to
judicial
custody
in
the
absence
of
anticipatory bail. Upon consideration, this
Court observes as follows:

49.1 As regards the merits of the
present case, I find force in the arguments
of learned A.G.A. that during the spot
inspection conducted at the applicant's
premises by the authorised representative
of SGS IPR Consultancy- the complainant-
a substantial quantity of counterfeit Asian
Paints products was recovered, indicating
that the applicant was deriving significant
illegal profit. As regards the applicant's
knowledge and intention to earn such
profit, these matters are to be examined
during trial and can only be determined
after the prosecution witness has deposed.
The applicant shall be at liberty to raise all
relevant contentions at the stage of framing
of charge, and the trial court shall consider
the same in accordance with law.

50. Needless to state, the applicant
shall appear before the trial court on the
next date of hearing and may directly
furnish a bail bond, subject to the
satisfaction of the trial court. There is no
requirement for the applicant to file a
separate bail application; the production of
the bail bond alone shall suffice. Nonbailable warrant, if issued before or during
the pendency of this application, shall stand
set aside.

51.
The
observation
made
hereinabove in para 49.1 shall not affect the
merits of the case and has been made for
the disposal of the present case.

52. The Registrar (Compliance) is
directed to forthwith transmit a copy of this
order to all the District Judges, who shall,
in turn, circulate the same to all Judicial
Officers of the District Courts; to the
Director General of Police, who shall
circulate it to all Commissioners of Police,
Senior Superintendents of Police, and
Superintendents of Police; to the Additional
Director General (Prosecution), who shall
circulate it to all Joint Directors in the
districts; and to the Director, Judicial
Training & Research Institute, Lucknow,
for
record
and
ensuring
effective
compliance.

53. Accordingly, with the above
observations and directions, the present
application is disposed of.
---------
(2025) 8 ILRA 120
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 25.08.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SHREE PRAKASH SINGH, J.

Application U/S 482 No. 6937 of 2025

Mohd. Abdul Aleem Khan ...Applicant
Versus
State of U.P. ...Opposite Party

Counsel for the Applicant:
8 All. Mohd. Abdul Aleem Khan Vs. State of U.P.
121
Nadeem Murtaza, Suruchi Tripathi, Wali
Nawaz Khan

Counsel for the Opposite Party:
G.A.

Issue for consideration
Pertains to sec 19 of the Act, 1988; whether the
sanction is deemed sanction or not

Headnotes
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (as
amended by Act of 2018)-sec.19; Code
of
Criminal
Procedure-sec.197-The
sanction granted by the State -Government
was declared non est -the sanction order was
quashed -and it was opened to the applicant
that in case any sanction is granted by the
Government of India-then the same can be
agitated before this Court-Court below passed
the impugned order for further orders- for
taking decision with respect to deemed
sanction-there is no provision with respect to
the deemed sanction of prosecution u/s 19impugned
order
set
aside-Application
allowed. (E-9)
Held:
The provision of Section 19 of the Act, 1988 is
para materia to the provision of section 197
Cr.P.C. to the effect and meaning of that there
is no provision of 'deemed sanction'. More-so,
Section 197 of Cr.P.C. is liberal than Section 19
of the Act, 1988, on the pretext that the
provisions of Section 197 of Cr.P.C. opens an
exception regarding an accused who was
deployed, under some official duty.

Case Law Cited
1.Dr. Subramanian Swamy Vs. Dr. Manmohan
Singh reported in [AIR 2012 SC 1185]
2. Suneeti Toteja Vs. State of U.P. and Others,
reported in [AIR 2025 SC 1308]
3. Shri Khereshwar Mahadev VA Dauji Maharaj
Samiti Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others
reported in [2025 SCC OnLine SC 774]
4. Neeraj Garg Vs. Sarita Rani and Others
reported in [(2021) 9 SCC 92]

List of Acts
1. Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (as
amended by Act of 2018)
2.Code of Criminal Procedure
List of Keywords
Sanction of prosecution, 'deemed sanction'
cognizance cannot be taken

Appearances of parties
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Nadeem Murtaza,
Suruchi Tripathi, Wali Nawaz Khan
Counsel for Opposite Party(s): G.A.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Shree Prakash
Singh, J.)

1.
Heard
Sri
Nadeem
Murtaza,
Advocate assisted by Sri Wali Nawaz
Khan, Ms. Suruchi Tripathi and Sri
Aishwarya Pratap Singh, learned counsels
for the applicant and Sri Sushil Pandey and
Sri
Nirmal
Kumar
Pandey
learned
Additional Government Advocate, for the
State.

2. The instant application under
Section 528 BNSS/482 Cr.P.C. has been
filed by the applicant with the prayer to
quash
the
impugned
order
dated
25.07.2025, passed by learned Special
Judge (Prevention of Corruption Act),
Court no. 6, Lucknow, in Sessions Case
No. 590 of 2023 (State v. Mohd. Abdul
Aleem Khan), arising out of Case Crime
No. 1262/2019, under Section 13(1)(b) r/w
13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act,
1988 (as amended by Act of 2018), Police
Station Gomti Nagar, District Lucknow.
Further prayer is that the scant observations
made in the impugned order dated
25.07.2025, against the learned Senior
Advocate,
representing
the
applicant,
before the learned trial court may be
deleted, as well as entire proceedings of
aforesaid sessions Case may also be
quashed.

3. Briefly stated factual matrix of the
case is that the applicant joined as a Pool
Officer and was selected in the Provincial
122 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Civil Services and thereafter promoted as
an
Officer
in
Indian
Administrative
Services and he retired from services on
30.11.2009. On 19th of February, 2015, an
enquiry was contemplated by the U.P.
Vigilance
Establishment,
Lucknow,
thereafter, the applicant submitted the proof
of income, assets and expenditure in
respect with him, as well as his wife, the
son, daughter-in-law and his 2 daughters.
Subsequently, an FIR was lodged on 24th
of October, 2019 under Section 13(2) read
with Section 13(1)(b) of the Prevention of
Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred
as 'Act of 1988'), with the Police Station
Gomti
Nagar,
District
Lucknow.
Whereafter, the investigation commenced
and the Competent Authority, in violation
of mandatory provisions, under Sections 17
and 17-A of the Act 1988, proceeded with
the matter. On 20th of January, 2023, the
sanction for prosecution was accorded on
behalf of Her Excellency, the Governor of
Uttar Pradesh and the chargesheet was
prepared on 18th of March, 2023. Such
sanction granted by the Authority was
assailed before this Court by filing an
Application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. No. 10429 of
2024, wherein an order was passed on 18th
of December, 2024, which is reproduced as
under:

"1. Heard Sri Nandit Kumar
Srivastava, Senior Advocate assisted by
Ms.
Suruchi
Tripathi,
Advocate,
Sri
Tanmay Krishna, Sri Ujjwal Maurya and
Ms. Shahla Zubair, Advocate, learned
counsel for the applicant and Sri Rao
Narendra Singh, learned A.G.A.

2. The instant application has
been filed by the applicant with a prayer to
quash the charge-sheet dated 18.03.2023
and cognizance order dated 23.03.2023 as
well as discharge rejection order dated
07.11.2024, and to hold the sanction order
dated 20.01.2023.

3.
On 16.12.2024,
following
order was passed:-

"1. Heard Sri Nandit Kumar
Srivastava, Senior Advocate assisted by
Ms.
Suruchi
Tripathi,
Advocate,
Sri
Tanmay Krishna, Sri Ujjwal Maurya and
Ms. Shahla Zubair, Advocate, counsel for
the applicant, Sri Rao Narendra Singh,
learned A.G.A. and Sri Raj Kumar Singh,
Senior Standing Counsel for Union of India

2. On 12.12.2024 following order
was passed:-

"1. Heard Sri Nandit Kumar
Srivastava, Senior Advocate assisted by
Ms. Suruchi Tripathi, Advocate, Sri Ujjwal
Maurya and Ms. Shahla Zubair, Advocate,
counsel
for
the
applicant,
Sri
Rao
Narendra Singh, learned A.G.A. and Sri
Raj Kumar Singh, Senior Standing Counsel
for Union of India.

2. Supplementary affidavit filed
by learned counsel for the applicant is
taken on record.

3. On 3.12.2024, following order
was passed:-

1. On 28.11.2024 following order
was passed:-

"1. Heard Sri Nandit Srivastava,
Senior Advocate assisted by Ms. Suruchi
Tripathi, Advocate & Ms. Shahla Zubair,
Advocate, learned counsel for the applicant
and Sri Rao Narendra Singh, learned
A.G.A. for the State.

2. The present application under
Section 482 Cr.P.C. is filed with the prayer
to quash the proceeding of Sessions Trial
(Criminal Case) No.590 of 2023 'State Vs.
Mohd. Aleem Khan', under Section 13(1)(b)
read with Section 13(2) of Prevention of
Corruption Case, arisen out of F.I.R.
No.1262 of 2019, Police Station Gomti
Nagar, District Lucknow.
8 All. Mohd. Abdul Aleem Khan Vs. State of U.P.
123

3. Learned counsel for the
applicant submits that applicant is a retired
officer of Indian Administrative Services
Cadre and prosecution in question was
initiated in the most mechanical manner
without mentioning the check period for
inquiry
with
the
allegation
of
disproportionate asset. He also submits
that inquiry was conducted and F.I.R. was
lodged, and thereafter, comprehensive
reply was given but same was not
considered and charge sheet was filed by
the Investigating Officer.

4. It was obligatory on the part of
the Investigating Officer to obtain sanction
from the appointing authority, i.e., His
Excellency, President of India but in the
present case the sanction has been given by
the State Government, which is not
permissible in the eye of law.

5. Learned counsel for the
applicant
submits
that
sanction
was
granted by the State Government on the
advice of the Department of Justice,
Government of U.P.

6. List this case on 3.12.2024 at
11:30 A.M.

7. On the next date of listing,
responsible
officer
of
appointment
department as well as Department of Law,
State of U.P. shall appear before this Court
and explain that whether for prosecution of
a officer belongs to Indian Administrative
Services Cadre, sanction is necessary from
the President of India or Governor of State.

8. It is open to the applicant to
make request before the trial court for
deferring of the proceeding till the next
date."

2. In pursuance of aforesaid
order, Mr. Aurnesh Kumar Dwivedi, Joint
Secretary, Department of Personnel and
Appointment and Mr. Manmeet Suri,
Special Secretary, Department of Law,
Government of U.P. are present before this
Court. Relevant record has been placed by
them. They submitted that it is bounden
duty of the Investigating Officer to obtain
sanction
from
the
Central
Government/appointing
authority
for
prosecuting the officer who belongs to All
India Service Cadre.

It has been informed that in the
present case prior to 20.01.2023 three
letters dated 07.12.2021, 04.02.2022 and
03.03.2022 were written to the Central
Government for grant of sanction but no
reply was given by the Under Secretary,
Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances
and Pensions, Department of Personnel
and
Training,
Government
of
India.
Thereafter, on 20.01.2023 the Investigating
Officer was granted permission to submit
charge sheet against the applicant for the
alleged offence under Section 13 (1) (b)
read with Section 13 (2) of Prevention of
Corruption Act as amended in the year
2018.

Mr. Aurnesh Kumar Dwivedi has
conceded the fact that Under Secretary,
Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances
and Pensions, Department of Personnel
and
Training,
Government
of
India
informed
vide
letter
No.107/14/2022AVD.I/C.2 dated 23.06.2023 in response to
letter No. 612/2-5-2023-22/(24)/2019 dated
19.05.2023 that in the case related to Babu
Ram IAS (retired) for grant of sanction to
prosecute him, the guidelines outlined at
para 4 of DOP&T letter no.107/8/99-AVDI dated 27.10.1999 regarding sanction for
prosecution against a retired IAS Officer
has been superseded by the Prevention of
Corruption Act, 1988 as amended in the
year 2018 and observed that Members of
All India cadre who have ceased to hold
the office during which the offence is
alleged to have been committed or who has
ceased to hold the office during which the
offence is alleged to have been committed
124 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
and is holding an office other than the
office during which the offence is alleged to
have been committed, sanction is necessary
from the Government of India. Thereafter
all the matters of the officials belong to All
India Service Cadre are being referred to
the
Central
Government
for
proper
sanction.

3. List this case on 12.12.2024.

4. By the next date of listing, Mr
Raj
Kumar
Singh,
learned
counsel
appearing for Union of India shall seek
written instructions from the Secretary,
Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances
and Pensions, Department of Personnel
and Training, Government of India that
why the response to the letters dated
07.12.2021, 04.02.2022 and 03.03.2022
has not been given related to the
prosecution sanction of the applicant.

5. Mr. Aurnesh Kumar Dwivedi,
Joint Secretary, Department of Personnel
and Appointment shall again appear along
with relevant record before this Court.

6. Mr. Manmeet Suri, Special
Secretary,
Department
of
Law,
Government of U.P. need not appear
unless called for.

7. It is open to the applicant to
move deferment application before the
court concerned. In case any such
application is filed, the proceedings shall
be deferred by the court below till decision
of the present case.

4. Sri Rajkumar Singh, Senior
Standing Counsel for Union of India placed
a letter dated 10.12.2024 written by Mr.
Pijush Mohanta, Under Secretary, Ministry
of
Personnel,
Public
Grievances
&
Pensions, Department of Personnel &
Training, Govt. of India and informed that
never any request for grant of prosecution
sanction was received from the State
Government. He also informed that in
pursuance of the letter dated 7.12.2021
issued by the Government of U.P., reply
was given through a letter dated 5.5.2022.

5. List this case on 16.12.2024 at
11:30 A.M."

6. On the next date, Principal
Secretary, Department of Appointment,
Government of U.P. shall appear before
this Court and explain the procedure to
accord the sanction for prosecution in
relation to the officials belongs to All India
Cadre."

3. In pursuance of earlier order,
Mr.
Desh
Raj,
Principal
Secretary,
Department of Appointment, Government
of U.P is present.

4. Mr Raj Kumar Singh, learned
counsel appearing for Union of India has
placed a policy for grant of sanction in
respect of public servant belongs to All
India Cadre dated 18.10.2024, which is
taken on record.

5. List this case on 18.12.2024 at
11.30 a.m.

6. By the next date, the Principal
Secretary shall file his personal affidavit
explaining the manner for according the
sanction for prosecution of officials belong
to All India Cadre under the provision of
P.C. Act.

7. The officer present today need
not appear unless called for."

4. In pursuance of aforesaid
order, counter affidavit filed by Sri Rao
Narendra Singh, learned A.G.A. duly
signed by Mr. M. Devraj, Principal
Secretary, Department of Personnel and
Appointment,
Government
of
U.P.,
Lucknow is taken on record.

5. Having perused paragraph
nos. 13 and 15 of the aforesaid counter
affidavit, it is admitted by the Principal
Secretary, Department of Personnel and
Appointment,
Government
of
U.P.,
Lucknow that only Government of India is
competent authority to give sanction for
8 All. Mohd. Abdul Aleem Khan Vs. State of U.P.
125
prosecution in relation to the officials who
belong to All India Service Cadre.
However, the sanction is granted by State
Government in the present case.

6. Considering the contents of
aforesaid counter affidavit, it is evident that
the
sanction
granted
by
the
State
Government is non est. Therefore, this
application is allowed and the sanction
order dated 20.01.2023 is hereby quashed.

7. However, it is open to the
applicant that in case any sanction is
granted by Government of India, then same
can be agitated before this Court."

4. Vide the aforesaid order, the
sanction granted by the State Government
was declared non est and the sanction order
dated 20.01.2023 was quashed and it was
opened to the applicant that in case any
sanction is granted by the Government of
India, then the same can be agitated before
this Court.

5. On 25th of July, 2025 the impugned
order was passed by the learned trial court
fixing a date on 24th of October, 2025, for
further orders, for taking decision with
respect
to
deemed
sanction.
Being
aggrieved,
the
instant
application
is
instituted.

6. The provision of sanction for
prosecution
under
the
Act
1988
is
envisaged u/s 19. Section 19 of the Act
reads as under:

"19. Previous sanction necessary
for prosecution.

(1)
No
Court
shall
take
cognizance of an offence punishable under
[sections 7, 11, 13 and 15] [Substituted
'sections 7, 10, 11, 13 and 15' by Act No. 16
of 2018, dated 26.7.2018.] alleged to have
been committed by a public servant, except
with the previous sanction,

(a) in the case of a person [who is
employed, or as the case may be, was at the
time of commission of the alleged offence
employed] [Substituted 'who is employed'
by Act No. 16 of 2018, dated 26.7.2018.] 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 [who is
employed, or as the case may be, was at the
time of commission of the alleged offence
employed] [Substituted 'who is employed'
by Act No. 16 of 2018, dated 26.7.2018.] in
connection with the affairs of a State and is
not removable from his office save by or
with 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.[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 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
126 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
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, presecribe 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 subsection (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."
8 All. Mohd. Abdul Aleem Khan Vs. State of U.P.
127

7. Having at glance, the aforesaid, it is
apparent that there is no provision with
respect
to
the
deemed
sanction
of
prosecution. The fact remains that the
prosecution sanction, granted earlier vide
order dated 20th of January, 2023, has
already been quashed and it was opened to
the applicant, to agitate any such order of
sanction of prosecution before this Court,
whereas subsequently, Her Excellency vide
order dated 12.03.2025, has cancelled the
order of sanction of prosecution dated 20th
of January, 2023 and as on date, there is no
order regarding the sanction of prosecution,
against the applicant, under Section 19 of
the Act, 1988.

8. I have also noticed that in Paragraph
4, the learned trial court has considered the
ratio of judgment rendered in the case of
Dr.
Subramanian
Swamy
Vs.
Dr.
Manmohan Singh reported in [AIR 2012
SC
1185],
and
the
operative
part/
instructions are reproduced, herein under :-

"(a) All proposals for sanction
placed before any sanctioning authority
empowered
to
grant
sanction
for
prosecution of a public servant under
Section 19 of the PC Act must be decided
within a period of three months of the
receipt of the proposal by the authority
concerned.

(b)
Where
consultation
is
required with the Attorney General or the
Solicitor General or the Advocate General
of the State, as the case may be, and the
same is not possible within the three
months mentioned in clause (a) above, an
extension of one month period may be
allowed, but the request for consultation is
to be sent in writing within the three
months mentioned in clause (a) above. A
copy of the said request will be sent to the
prosecuting
agency
or
the
private
complainant to intimate them about the
extension of the time-limit.

(c) At the end of the extended
period of time-limit, if no decision is taken,
sanction will be deemed to have been
granted to the proposal for prosecution, and
the prosecuting agency or the private
complainant will proceed to file the chargesheet/complaint in the court to commence
prosecution within 15 days of the expiry of
the aforementioned time-limit."

9. While reading the abovenoted
instructions/part of consideration, it is
abundantly clear that, these are not the ratio
of judgment drawn in the abovenoted case
but
those
are
in
the
form
of
directions/instructions,
framed
to
be
considered by the Parliament, therefore, the
findings which are based on the assumption
of ratio in judgment of Dr. Subramanian
Swamy (supra), is erroneous, on it's face.

10. In the case of Suneeti Toteja Vs.
State of U.P. and Others, reported in
[AIR 2025 SC 1308] the ratios are drawn
in Paragraph nos. 30 to 32, which read as
under:

"30. The argument advanced by
the respondent-State and the complainant
with respect to "deemed sanction" is also
not tenable. Section 197 of Code of
Criminal Procedure does not envisage a
concept
of
deemed
sanction.
The
chargesheet, as well as the counter affidavit
of the respondent-State, have relied upon
the judgment of this Court in Vineet Narain
to contend that lack of grant of sanction by
the concerned authority within relevant
time would amount to deemed sanction for
prosecution. However, a perusal of the said
judgment reveals that it did not deal with
Section 197 Code of Criminal Procedure
and rather it dealt with the investigation
128 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
powers and procedures of Central Bureau
of Investigation and Central Vigilance
Commission. While it did mention that the
time limits for grant of sanction for
prosecution must be strictly adhered to,
there is no observation to the effect that
lack of grant of sanction for prosecution
within the time limit would amount to
deemed sanction for prosecution.

31. Similarly, learned counsel for
the complainant had placed reliance on the
judgment of this Court in Subramanian
Swamy to lend credence to the argument of
deemed sanction for prosecution. However,
even the said judgment does not in any
manner lay down the notion of deemed
sanction. First, the said judgment dealt
primarily with the Prevention of Corruption
Act,1988 and the sanction for prosecution
under that Act. Secondly, G.S. Singhvi, J.
while penning his separate but concurring
opinion in the said judgment, had given
some guidelines for the consideration of the
Parliament, one of which is to the effect
that at the end of the extended period of
time limit, if no decision is taken, sanction
will be deemed to have been granted to the
proposal
for
prosecution,
and
the
prosecuting
agency
or
the
private
complainant will proceed to file the
chargesheet/complaint in the court to
commence prosecution within fifteen days
of the expiry of the aforementioned time
limit. However, such a proposition has not
yet been statutorily incorporated by the
Parliament and in such a scenario, this
Court cannot read such a mandate into the
statute when it does not exist.

32. Therefore, we are of the
opinion that the learned Magistrate was not
right in taking cognizance of the offence
against the appellant herein without there
being a sanction for prosecution granted by
the competent authority. Further, the High
Court erred in not considering the fact that
the sanction for prosecution was not
granted by the competent authority under
Section 197 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure and eventually the sanction was
expressly
denied
by
the
competent
authority with respect to the allegations
against
the
appellant.
The
necessary
sanction not having been granted has
vitiated the very initiation of the criminal
proceeding against the appellant herein.
Consequently,
the
chargesheet,
the
summoning order and the consequent steps,
if any, taken by the trial court pursuant to
the same are liable to be quashed qua the
appellant herein and are thus quashed.

The appeal is therefore allowed in
the aforesaid terms."

11. In this matter, considering the
provisions of Section 197 of Code of
Criminal Procedure as well as Section 19 of
the Act 1988, the Hon'ble Apex Court held
that without there being sanction for
prosecution, granted by the Competent
Authority, the cognizance cannot be taken
and, further, there can be no 'deemed
sanction' of prosecution, in respect with the
provisions of Section 19 of the Act, 1988.

12. Learned counsel appearing for the
State could not dispute the settled legal
proposition of law as well as the
applicability of law as provided under
Section 19 of the Act, 1988, in it?s right
terms and intent.

13. It is culled out that the impugned
order was passed while fixing the date on
24th
of
October,
2025,
for
further
orders/deemed sanction. The fact remains
that the order of sanction dated 20.01.2023
passed by Her Excellency, has already been
quashed vide order of this Court dated
18.12.2024 and in compliance thereof, the
8 All. Mohd. Abdul Aleem Khan Vs. State of U.P.
129
order of sanction dated 20.01.2023 has
formally been cancelled on 12.03.2025 and
as a result, there is no sanction of
prosecution against the applicant, as of
now. This Court has also examined the law
rendered in the case of Dr. Subramanian
Swamy (supra) which is considered by the
learned trial court in the impugned order.
From bare reading, which is quoted in the
impugned order, itself enough to show that
the same is for direction to the Parliament
to take note of the aforesaid points and to
proceed for promulgating the law in respect
thereoff and that is not a guideline framed
by the learned Apex Court, to be followed
as law precedent and, therefore, the learned
trial court has not rightly considered the
ratio of judgment rendered, in the present
case.

14. Further, the provisions of Section
19 of the Act, 1988 do not contains the
provision, regarding deemed sanction of
prosecution, meaning thereby that there
was no intent of legislature so as to
prescribe any provision for grant of
'deemed sanction'.

15. It is trite law that if a law requiring
a particular thing to be done in a particular
manner, the same shall be done in that
manner alone and not otherwise. The
Hon'ble Apex Court has reiterated this ratio
in the case of Shri Khereshwar Mahadev
VA Dauji Maharaj Samiti Vs. State of
Uttar Pradesh and Others reported in
[2025 SCC OnLine SC 774].

16. In fact, it is long settled law that
the
Court
cannot
proceed
with
an
assumption
that
the
legislature
has
committed
error
or
mistake
while
promulgating a statute, where the language
of the statute is plain and unambiguous
and, therefore the Court cannot add or
subtract any meaning or word otherwise
than the law is enacted with the particular
intent of the wisdom of the legislature.

17. The provision of Section 19 of the
Act, 1988 is para materia to the provision
of section 197 Cr.P.C. to the effect and
meaning of that there is no provision of
'deemed sanction'. More-so, Section 197 of
Cr.P.C. is liberal than Section 19 of the
Act, 1988, on the pretext that the provisions
of Section 197 of Cr.P.C. opens an
exception regarding an accused who was
deployed, under some official duty. Having
at a glance of the judgment of the Apex
Court in the case of Suneeti Toteja
(supra), this court noticed that the issue
with respect to deemed sanction has been
dealt with, which says that the necessary
sanction not having been granted, vitiates
the
very
initiation
of
the
criminal
proceeding against the accused.

18. Departing from this order, it is
noticed that learned trial court, while
passing the impugned order, has made
some adverse remarks against the Senior
Lawyer, though, the same seems to be
harsh. There are repeated adversarial
remarks of the learned trial court whereas
the Hon'ble Apex Court is aware of this
kind of remarks and, therefore, held in Para
nos. 9 and 15 of judgment rendered in the
case of Neeraj Garg Vs. Sarita Rani and
Others reported in [(2021) 9 SCC 92],
which is reproduced herein under:

"9. To press home the argument
that the offending remarks against the
counsel are unmerited, and do not meet the
required
parameters,
the
learned
Sr.
Counsel has cited State of U.P. vs.
Mohammad Naim where Justice S.K. Das
laid down the following tests to be applied
while
dealing
with
the
question
of
130 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
expunction of disparaging remarks against
a person whose conduct comes in for
consideration before a Court of law. Those
tests are:

(a) Whether the party whose
conduct is in question is before the court or
has an opportunity of explaining or
defending himself;

(b) Whether there is evidence on
record bearing on that conduct justifying
the remarks; and

(c) Whether it is necessary for the
decision of the case, as an integral part
thereof, to animadvert on that conduct.

15. While it is of fundamental
importance in the realm of administration
of justice to allow the judges to discharge
their functions freely and fearlessly and
without interference by anyone, it is
equally important for the judges to be
exercising restraint and avoid unnecessary
remarks on the conduct of the counsel
which may have no bearing on the
adjudication of the dispute before the
Court."

19. It is apparent observation of the
Apex Court that offending remarks against
the counsels, are un-warranted and don't
touched upon the required parameters .

20. Needless to say that the learned
trial court has made some adverse remarks
against Senior Counsel, though such
remarks were not required under the facts
and circumstances of the present case.

21. For the forgoing reasons and
discussions, this court finds merit in the
application, thus, the impugned order dated
25.07.2025 passed by learned Special
Judge (Prevention of Corruption Act),
Court no. 6, Lucknow, in Sessions Case
No. 590 of 2023 (State v. Mohd. Abdul
Aleem Khan), arising out of Case Crime
No. 1262/2019, under Section 13(1)(b) r/w
13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act,
1988 (as amended by Act of 2018), Police
Station Gomti Nagar, District Lucknow, is
hereby set aside.

22. The instant application is allowed
accordingly.

23. 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.
---------
(2025) 8 ILRA 130
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 06.08.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE ANISH KUMAR GUPTA, J.

Application U/S 482 No. 10217 of 2017

Ankur & Ors. ...Applicants
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Applicants:
Pawan Singh Pundir

Counsel for the Opposite Parties:
G.A., Om Prakash Tiwari

Issue for consideration
Whether proceedings under SC/ST Act be
quashed under settlement or not.

Headnotes
Allegations in the FIR- do not relate to a private
dispute between the parties -affect the society
at large.-Application seek withdrawal of the
proceedings and alleging therein that no such
incident has taken place- this gives a reasonable
apprehension to the Court- that the witnesses
have either been win over or have been put
under some kind of fear -which compelled them