The Punjab and Haryana High Court has made a key clarification regarding the prosecution of public servants under the Prevention of Corruption Act (PC Act). The Court ruled that if sanction to prosecute a public servant under Section 19 of the PC Act is not granted, they cannot be proceeded against only for the offence of criminal conspiracy under Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
Read also: Punjab & Haryana High Court Slams SDM for Constituting Medical Board, Calls It Judicial Overreach
Justice Manjari Nehru Kaul observed:
"A public servant, in respect of whom sanction to prosecute has not been granted under Section 19 of the PC Act, and who is, therefore, not charged with any substantive offence under the said Act, cannot be proceeded against solely under Section 120-B IPC, when the alleged object of the conspiracy is the commission of offences under the PC Act."
The Court stated that pursuing a charge of conspiracy in such a situation would effectively amount to bypassing the statutory protection granted by the PC Act.
The decision came in a petition filed by Sachin Ahlawat, who challenged the summoning and cognizance order passed by a CBI Court. The FIR against him had been registered under Section 7 of the PC Act and Section 120-B of the IPC. His senior counsel, Bipan Ghai, argued that the trial court acted without obtaining the necessary sanction under Section 19 of the PC Act—an essential prerequisite for prosecuting a public servant under the Act.
According to the petition, the CBI had only invoked Section 120-B IPC against the petitioner, without charging him under any independent IPC offence. This, the counsel argued, was an attempt to sidestep the legal requirement of obtaining sanction under the PC Act.
The Court took note of the fact that the CBI acknowledged the alleged conspiracy only involved a demand for illegal gratification—an offence strictly covered under Section 7 of the PC Act. Since no other offence was alleged apart from this, and the required sanction had been denied, continuing the prosecution only under conspiracy was deemed impermissible.
Justice Kaul explained:
"It is a settled principle that conspiracy cannot be considered in isolation from the object it seeks to achieve. If the objective of the conspiracy is an offence for which prosecution is barred by law, then prosecuting the conspiracy alone would be legally flawed."
In this case, since the core allegation involved a violation of the PC Act and no challenge was made against the authority’s decision to deny sanction, the Court held that prosecuting the petitioner solely for conspiracy would be a misuse of legal powers.
"It constitutes a clear attempt to achieve indirectly what the law prohibits directly, thereby undermining the statutory mandate and rendering the protection under Section 19 illusory," the Court remarked.
The Court also pointed out that there was no material on record indicating any separate criminal act or conspiracy outside of the PC Act. Therefore, prosecuting the petitioner just for criminal conspiracy was found to be legally unsustainable.
The High Court referred to the judgment in Pavana Dibbur vs. Directorate of Enforcement, which, though based on the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), emphasized the principle that a conspiracy charge cannot stand alone—it must relate to a substantive, prosecutable offence.
In its closing remarks, the Court noted:
"What cannot be done directly cannot be permitted indirectly. Allowing prosecution under Section 120-B IPC despite denial of sanction would render Section 19 of the PC Act meaningless."
Further, the Court emphasized that removing the requirement of sanction would dilute legislative intent and the protective shield meant for public servants under Article 14 of the Constitution.
"The safeguard of sanction would thus become illusory, and the constitutional protection under Article 14 would be compromised, allowing for the selective and unjust application of penal consequences."
As a result, the Punjab and Haryana High Court allowed the plea and quashed the proceedings initiated against the petitioner, reaffirming the significance of mandatory sanction in public servant prosecutions under the PC Act.
Mr. Bipan Ghai, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Nikhil Ghai, Advocate and Ms. Pragyat Bhardwaj, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Ravi Kamal Gupta, Advocate for the respondent-CBI.
Title: Sachin Ahlawat v. Central Bureau of Investigation
