Раджастханский Верховный суд: предварительное согласие обязательно для возбуждения дела после поправки 2018 года

- Home - / - High Courts - / - Rajasthan High Court - / - Prior Sanction Required If... Prior Sanction Required If Cognizance Taken After 2018 PC Act Amendment, Even If Chargesheet Filed Earlier: Rajasthan High Court Nupur Agrawal 13 Aug 2026 12:15 PM IST The Rajasthan High Court has held that requirement of taking prior sanction under Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (the “Act”) gets attracted even in a case where the offence was committed before the relevant amendment in 2018, but cognizance was yet to be taken in the case. The bench of Justice Kuldeep Mathur observed that the amended Section 19 created a statutory... This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers Subscribe Premium INR 1099+GST Your support helps us to bring you more content at an affordable subscription scheme !!! All payment options available The Rajasthan High Court has held that requirement of taking prior sanction under Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (the “Act”) gets attracted even in a case where the offence was committed before the relevant amendment in 2018, but cognizance was yet to be taken in the case. The bench of Justice Kuldeep Mathur observed that the amended Section 19 created a statutory bar upon the competence of the Court to take cognizance until the previous sanction was obtained. The provision neither regulated the stage of investigation or the filing of the police report. “The legislature has consciously chosen the stage of cognizance as the point at which compliance with the requirement of previous sanction becomes mandatory. Consequently, the date of commission of offence or submission of the charge-sheet cannot, by themselves, determine the applicability of the amended provision,” it held. For context, the unamended Section 19, did not require a sanction where the accused had left public office on the date of taking cognizance. However, after the 2018 amendment, it was provided that previous sanction was necessary even where the accused was employed as a public servant at the time of commission of alleged offence. The Court was hearing a criminal revision petition that challenged order of the trial court that directed the State to obtain a prior sanction before taking cognizance in a matter that was against a former sarpanch. It was the case of the State that the offence was committed by the accused while being in office, before the relevant amendment was brought, and a charge sheet was also filed. However, during the proceedings, the amendment was brought, and the trial court, before taking cognizance, passed the aforementioned order. This order was challenged by the State on the grounds that the alleged offence was committed much prior to the amendment and even the charge sheet was filed before the amendment was brought. Hence, the amended provision could not be applied in the present case merely because the cognizance remained pending for a considerable time. After hearing the contentions, the Court perused the amended Section 19, and highlighted that the provision operated at the stage of taking cognizance and not at the stage of investigation or filing of charge sheet. “A plain reading of Section 19 leaves no manner of doubt that the embargo created therein operates only at the stage when the Court proceeds to take cognizance of an offence. The provision neither regulates the stage of investigation nor the filing of the police report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. It simply creates a statutory bar upon the competence of the Court to take cognizance unless the previous sanction contemplated therein has been obtained. Thus, the stage at which Section 19 becomes operative is not the registration of the FIR or submission of the charge-sheet, but the stage of 'taking cognizance' by the competent Court.” The Court further highlighted, the Supreme Court, in a series of judgments, had consistently held that no sanction was required where the accused had ceased to hold public office on the date of cognizance. However, the 2018 amendment changed the position by making previous sanction mandatory even where the accused was a public servant at the time of commission of alleged offence. Hence, the amendment altered not the stage at which the sanction was required but the category of public servant entitled to such protection. A further reference was made to a Kerala High Court case in which it was held that although amendment in Section 19 was prospective in operation, the point of time for determining its applicability was the date of taking cognizance. Hence, in this background, while taking into account the facts of the present matter, the Court dismissed the revision petition. Title: State of Rajasthan v Bhagwan Singh Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 320