SRINAGAR: The Jammu Kashmir and Ladakh High Court has dismissed a petition seeking dismissal of a corruption case against a government employee over a discrepancy in the dates mentioned on the sanction order for his prosecution, holding that the difference alone could not establish that the sanction was invalid.
Justice Sanjay Parihar, while rejecting a petition filed by Nisar Ahmad Rather, an Accounts Assistant in the Directorate of Accounts and Treasuries, Kashmir, however, left it open to the trial court to examine the legality of the sanction at the appropriate stage, including by considering official records and evidence.
In an order dated October 31, 2026, the court observed that the discrepancy required examination but could not, by itself, be treated as conclusive proof of an invalid sanction. It said the petitioner had not produced independent material to establish that the sanction had actually been granted after the charge-sheet was filed or that it otherwise violated the mandatory requirements of Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
“The mere circumstance that the charge-sheet was presented on 29.05.2024 does not, by itself, conclusively establish that the date 24.09.2024 appearing against the signatures of the sanctioning authority was necessarily the result of a clerical error,” Justice Parihar observed.
The court added that the question of whether the date reflected an inadvertent mistake or a substantive defect affecting the legality of the sanction would have to be determined by the trial court on the basis of the relevant record and, where necessary, evidence.
The petitioner had approached the High Court challenging a trial court order that rejected his application for dismissal of the charge-sheet in FIR No. 01/2023 registered by the Anti-Corruption Bureau, Srinagar, under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act.
The charge-sheet in the case was filed before the trial court on May 29, 2024. Rather had subsequently sought its dismissal, arguing that the prosecution lacked a valid sanction under Section 19 of the Act.
His challenge centred on Government Order No. 12-JK-GAD(Vig) of 2024, dated April 29, 2024, according sanction for his prosecution. While the order carried the date April 29, 2024, the signatures of the sanctioning authority bore September 24, 2024. The petitioner argued that the difference rendered the sanction legally unsustainable and undermined the prosecution.
The trial court had rejected the plea, observing that since the charge-sheet had already been filed on May 29, 2024, the later date appearing against the signatures could reasonably be attributed to an inadvertent or clerical error. It treated the discrepancy as technical and insufficient to invalidate the sanction or warrant dismissal of the charge-sheet.
Before the High Court, the petitioner’s counsel, Junaid Rashid, argued that the trial court had failed to appreciate the mandatory nature of Section 19 and the importance of sanction as a statutory safeguard in corruption prosecutions involving public servants.
He submitted that any defect affecting the validity of the sanction went to the root of the prosecution and that the trial court could not presume, without supporting material, that the discrepancy was merely a clerical or human error.
The counsel also relied on the Supreme Court judgment in Mohd. Iqbal Ahmad v. State of Andhra Pradesh, AIR 1979 SC 677, to underline the requirement of valid sanction before prosecuting a public servant.
During the hearing, however, the petitioner’s counsel clarified that the sanction was not being challenged on the ground that the competent authority had failed to apply its mind.
Examining the prosecution material, the High Court noted that Rather was posted as an Accounts Assistant in the Directorate of Accounts and Treasuries, Kashmir, when the alleged offence took place.
According to the prosecution case, Abdul Rouf Mir and Zameer Ahmad, representing employees of Children’s Hospital, Bemina, lodged a complaint alleging that Rather had demanded money for settling an issue relating to payment of two-and-a-half days’ allowance due to the employees.
The complaint alleged that he initially sought Rs 3,000 but later increased the demand to Rs 18,000 when the employees approached him for release of the allowance. Following their agreement to make the payment, the Anti-Corruption Bureau laid a trap, during which Rather was allegedly caught red-handed while demanding and accepting Rs 18,000 in the presence of independent witnesses. The incident led to the registration of the FIR.
The High Court noted that the proceedings before the trial court had not progressed beyond the stage of consideration of charge or discharge.
While recognising that valid sanction was an important statutory protection against frivolous and unwarranted prosecution of public servants, the court said every irregularity or discrepancy in a sanction order could not automatically lead to the termination of criminal proceedings.
It further observed that the legality of a sanction could be examined at the stage of consideration of charge or discharge, depending on the nature of the objection and the material available. Where the challenge involved disputed facts or required scrutiny of the circumstances surrounding the grant of sanction, the issue could also be examined during trial.
The court also clarified that the accused was not barred from challenging the sanction by seeking examination of official records or cross-examining the sanctioning authority and other relevant witnesses.
On the Supreme Court ruling cited by the petitioner, Justice Parihar said its principle regarding the necessity of valid sanction was not in dispute, but it did not establish that a discrepancy of the present nature must automatically result in dismissal of the charge-sheet.
The court directed that the trial court would remain free to decide the validity of the sanction at the appropriate stage, without being influenced by the tentative observations made in the High Court order. It also preserved the petitioner’s right to raise all legally permissible objections.
Finding no ground for interference with the trial court’s refusal to dismiss the charge-sheet, the High Court dismissed the petition as devoid of merit.
