Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 · Chapter V: Sanction for Prosecution and Other Miscellaneous Provisions
Section 19: Previous sanction necessary for prosecution
(1) No court shall take cognizance of an offence punishable under [sections 7, 11, 13 and 15] alleged to have been committed by a public servant, except with the previous sanction [save as otherwise provided in the Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act, 2013 (1 of 2014)]—
(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] 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] in connection with the affairs of a State and is not removable from his office save by or with the 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 (2 of 1974) 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 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, prescribe 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 sub-section (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.
Source: India Code (indiacode.gov.in), the consolidated text published by the Legislative Department, Government of India. Text as updated on India Code on 14 October 2026. Words in square brackets [ ] were inserted or substituted by later amending Acts, and *** marks words omitted by an amendment. The amendment footnotes are not reproduced here. Official text on India Code.
Supreme Court judgments citing the section 19
-
State by Deputy Superintendent of Police v. B.T. Ramesh & Anr.
Issue arose whether the High Court was justified in quashing the criminal proceedings, on the grounds of the chargesheet having been filed more than four years after the date of the alleged incident and lack of…
-
Visakhapatnam v. Eluri Srinivasa Chakravarthi and Others
Whether the two letters could have been looked at or relied upon by the Special Court for exercising its jurisdiction u/s.239, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
-
Dashrath v. The State of Maharashtra
The conviction of the appellant as well as the sentence imposed on him u/ss.7 and 13(1)(d) r/w. s.13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 is questioned.
-
Central Bureau of Investigation v. Ramesh Chander Diwan
Whether the High Court was right in holding that sanction under Section 197, Cr.PC not having been obtained, the respondent should be discharged for the offences registered under Sections 120B and 420 of the IPC against…
-
The State of Tamil Nadu v. The Governor of Tamil Nadu & Anr.
a. What courses of action are available to the Governor in exercise of his powers under Article 200 of the Constitution. b. Whether the Governor can reserve a Bill for the consideration of the President when it is…
-
The State of Punjab v. Hari Kesh
Whether the High Court was justified in quashing the Sanction Order and setting aside the proceedings arising therefrom, thereby allowing the petition filed by the accused.
-
Central Bureau of Investigation v. Jagat Ram
Respondent was convicted u/ss.7, 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2), Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 by the Trial Court. High Court acquitted the respondent holding that the findings of the Trial Court were based on evidence…
-
Fuleshwar Gope v. Union of India & Ors.
Issue arose as to whether the validity of the Sanction Order can be challenged at any stage; whether violation of s.45(2) of the UAPA r/w rr.3 and 4 of the 2008 Rules, if any, vitiates the proceedings, whether violation…
-
M/S Karnataka Emta Coal Mines Limited and Another v. Central Bureau of Investigation
The present appeals challenge the Order on Charge dated 24.12.2021 and Order framing Charges dated 03.03.2022 passed by the Special Judge (Prevention of Corruption Act) Central Bureau of Investigation registered…
-
The State of Punjab v. Partap Singh Verka
Correctness of the order passed by the High Court setting aside the order of the trial court which had summoned respondent u/s 319 CrPC to face the trial for the offences u/s. 7/13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption…
-
Nara Chandrababu Naidu v. The State of Andhra Pradesh & Anr.
Interpretation of s.17A, Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 incorporated by the Prevention of Corruption (Amendment) Act, 26 of 2018 and its applicability to the facts of the present case.
-
Gurdev Singh Bhalla v. State of Punjab & Ors
Whether the High Court was justified in dismissing the Revision filed by the appellant against the order of the Special Judge allowing the application u/s. 319 CrPC summoning the appellant along with three other…
- Sita Soren v. Union of India
-
A. Sreenivasa Reddy v. Rakesh Sharma and Anr.
Whether the appellant, an Assistant General Manager of a Nationalised Bank is removable from his office save by or with the sanction of the Government so as to make s.197, CrPC applicable; and if he can be proceeded…
- A. Srinivasulu v. The State Rep. by the Inspector of
- Vijay Rajmohan v. State Represented by the Inspector of Police, Cbi, Acb, Chennai, Tamil Nadu
- Abhay Jain v. The High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan and Anr
- Bank of Baroda & Anr v. Mbl Infrastructures Limited & Ors.
- The State of Kerala v. K. Ajith & Ors.
- Phoenix Arc Private Limited v. Spade Financial Services Limited & Ors.
- Jayant Etc. v. The State of Madhya Pradesh
- M/S. Fertico Marketing and Investment Pvt. Ltd and Ors. Etc. v. Central Bureau of Investigation and Another Etc.
- Benedict Denis Kinny v. Tulip Brian Miranda & Ors.
- Station House Officer, Cbi/Acb/Bangalore v. B.A. Srinivasan and Anr.
- CBI Gujarat v. Dilip Mulani & Anr.
- State of Mizoram v. Dr. C. Sangnghina
- Asian Resurfacing of Road Agency Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.V. Central Bureau of Investigation v. Central Bureau of Investigation
- Manju Surana v. Sunil Arora & Ors.
- Neera Yadav v. Central Bureau of Investigaton
- Girlsh Kumar Suneja v. C.B.L.
- Vivek Batra v. Union of India and Others
- L. Narayana Swamy v. State of Karnataka & Ors.
- Surinderjit Singh Mand & Anr. v. State of Punjab & Anr.
- State Through Cbl/Acb, Hyderabad A.P. v. Dharmana Prased Rao
- Prof. N. K. Ganguly v. CBI New Delhi
- Nanjappa v. State of Karnataka
- State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors. v. Anand Mohan &Anr.
- Prasad Shrikant Purohit v. State of Maharashtra & Anr
- Sanjaysinh Ramrao Chavan v. Dattatray Gulabrao Phalke and Others