SRINAGAR: The High Court of Jammu Kashmir and Ladakh has dismissed a petition filed by an Accounts Assistant seeking dismissal of a corruption charge-sheet against him over a discrepancy in the dates appearing on his prosecution sanction order, holding that the difference alone, without material establishing substantive illegality, cannot justify termination of criminal proceedings.
Justice Sanjay Parihar, while deciding CRM(M) No. 918/2026 on October 31, observed that the validity of the sanction could still be examined by the trial court at the appropriate stage, and that the accused would remain at liberty to challenge it through legally permissible means.
The petitioner, Nisar Ahmad Rather, was booked in FIR No. 01/2023 registered by the Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB), Srinagar, under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. He was charge-sheeted before the trial court on May 29, 2024.
The challenge arose from Government Order No. 12-JK-GAD(Vig) of 2024, dated April 29, 2024, granting sanction for his prosecution. While the order carried the date April 29, the signatures of the sanctioning authority appearing on it bore September 24, 2024.
Rather argued that the discrepancy rendered the sanction legally unsustainable and vitiated the prosecution, as a valid sanction under Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act was a mandatory statutory safeguard before prosecuting a public servant.
He had earlier approached the trial court seeking dismissal of the charge-sheet on this ground, but his application was rejected. The trial court had observed that, since the charge-sheet had been presented on May 29, 2024, the September 24 date 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 dismiss the charge-sheet.
Challenging that decision before the High Court, the petitioner’s counsel, Junaid Rashid, Advocate, argued that the trial court had failed to appreciate the mandatory nature of Section 19 of the Act. He submitted that any infirmity 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 the result of a clerical or human error.
During the hearing, however, the counsel fairly conceded that the sanction order was not being challenged on the ground of non-application of mind by the sanctioning authority.
The prosecution case, as outlined in the court order, relates to allegations that Rather, who was posted as an Accounts Assistant in the Directorate of Accounts and Treasuries, Kashmir, had demanded and accepted illegal gratification from employees of Children’s Hospital, Bemina.
According to the case, Abdul Rouf Mir and Zameer Ahmad lodged a complaint on behalf of the hospital employees, alleging that Rather had demanded money for settling an issue concerning payment of two-and-a-half days’ allowance admissible to the employees.
He had allegedly initially demanded Rs 3,000, but subsequently raised the amount to Rs 18,000 when approached for release of the allowance. After the employees agreed to make the payment, the ACB laid a trap and Rather was allegedly apprehended red-handed while demanding and accepting Rs 18,000 in the presence of independent witnesses.
The High Court examined whether the discrepancy in the sanction order, by itself, entitled the petitioner to dismissal of the charge-sheet at the present stage, particularly when the trial court proceedings had not progressed beyond consideration of charge and discharge.
The court acknowledged that a valid prosecution sanction was an important statutory safeguard intended to protect public servants against frivolous, vexatious or unwarranted prosecution. It also recognised an accused person’s right to question the legality and validity of such sanction.
However, Justice Parihar observed that not every alleged irregularity in a sanction order necessarily warranted termination of criminal proceedings, irrespective of its nature and effect.
The court noted that the petitioner had not placed any independent material on record to establish that the sanction had actually been accorded after the charge-sheet was presented or that it had otherwise been issued in violation of Section 19 of the Act.
At the same time, the court found substance in the petitioner’s contention that the trial court could not simply presume that the discrepancy was a clerical error.
“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,” the court observed, adding that such a conclusion must rest on the material available on record.
It further held that the discrepancy, although requiring consideration, could not by itself be treated as conclusive proof of the sanction’s invalidity.
“The existence of a discrepancy in the dates, without anything further to demonstrate that the sanction was not validly accorded, cannot automatically obliterate the prosecution or render the charge-sheet non est in the eyes of law,” the court said.
The High Court also clarified that the accused was not precluded from questioning the sanction before the trial court or, where necessary, during the trial by cross-examining the sanctioning authority or other relevant witnesses.
Referring to the Supreme Court judgment in Mohd. Iqbal Ahmad v. State of Andhra Pradesh, AIR 1979 SC 677, relied upon by the petitioner, the court said the ruling reiterated the requirement of a valid sanction in accordance with statutory provisions but did not establish that a discrepancy of the nature involved in the present case must automatically result in dismissal of the charge-sheet.
The court left the trial court at liberty to examine the validity of the sanction at the appropriate stage, uninfluenced by its tentative observations regarding the discrepancy. It also preserved the petitioner’s right to raise all legally permissible objections, which would have to be considered in accordance with law.
Finding no ground for interference with the trial court’s decision refusing to dismiss the charge-sheet, Justice Parihar dismissed the petition as devoid of merit on October 31, 2026.
