Case Summary: Mohd.
Abdul Aleem Khan vs. State of U.P.
Citation: 2025:AHC-LKO:49682 Court: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad (Lucknow Bench) Bench: Hon’ble Shree Prakash Singh, J. Date of Judgment: August 25, 2025
Executive Summary
The Allahabad High Court has set aside a trial court order that sought to proceed with a corruption case based on the concept of "deemed sanction." The Court clarified that Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption (PC) Act, 1988, does not recognise the concept of "deemed sanction" and that criminal proceedings cannot be initiated without an express sanction from the competent authority.
Facts of the Case
- The Applicant: A retired IAS officer (retired 30.11.2009).
- Allegations: An FIR was lodged in 2019 under Section 13(1)(b) r/w 13(2) of the PC Act regarding disproportionate assets.
- Procedural History: * The State Government initially granted sanction on 20.01.2023.
- This sanction was previously quashed by the High Court on 18.12.2024 because the Central Government (not the State) was the competent authority to grant sanction for an IAS officer.
- Despite no valid sanction existing, the trial court (Special Judge, PC Act, Lucknow) passed an order on 25.07.2025 to take a decision regarding "deemed sanction."
Key Legal Issues
- Does the PC Act allow for "deemed sanction" for prosecution?
- Can a trial court take cognizance of an offence under the PC Act without express sanction?
- The validity of adverse remarks made by the trial court against the Senior Advocate.
High Court's Findings
1. Rejection of "Deemed Sanction" Theory
- The Court held that Section 19 of the PC Act is mandatory. No court can take cognizance without previous sanction.
- The Court noted that the trial court misinterpreted the Supreme Court's directions in Dr. Subramanian Swamy vs. Dr. Manmohan Singh. Those directions were suggestions for Parliament to legislate, not a judicial precedent creating a "deemed sanction" rule.
- Relying on Suneeti Toteja vs. State of UP (2025), the Court reaffirmed that lack of sanction within a time limit does not equal granted sanction.
2. Legislative Intent
- The Court observed that Section 19 does not contain any provision for "deemed sanction," meaning the legislature never intended to prescribe such a mechanism.
- It is a settled rule of statutory interpretation that courts cannot add or subtract words to a statute when the language is plain and unambiguous.
3. Expunging Remarks Against Counsel
- The trial court had made several adverse and adversarial remarks against the applicant's Senior Lawyer.
- The High Court set these aside, citing Neeraj Garg vs. Sarita Rani, stating that judges should exercise restraint and avoid unnecessary remarks on the conduct of counsel that have no bearing on the adjudication of the dispute.
Final Order
- The impugned trial court order dated 25.07.2025 is set aside.
- The High Court granted the trial court liberty to revive proceedings only if and when a valid sanction is granted by the appropriate government.
https://youtu.be/tSTteR8X9sk