(2014) 11 SCC 388 – State of Bihar Vs. Raj Mangal Ram, (2004) 7 SCC 763 – The court cannot find fault with the sanction order unless it reaches the conclusion that, a failure of justice has been occasioned by such error, omission or irregularity in the sanction order including error of jurisdiction to pass sanction order.
(2009) 15 SCC 72 – State of M.P. Vs. P.V. Jiyalal – The defect in the investigation and sanction does not make any difference to the case of prosecution unless it has resulted in serious miscarriage of justice.
(2005) 4 SCC 81 – C.S. Krishnamurthy Vs. State of Karnataka – Sanction for prosecution is a safe guard to a public servant against frivolous prosecution. It should not be taken as a shield to protect corrupt and dishonest public servants. In case the sanction order speaks for itself, then the satisfaction of sanctioning authority is apparent by reading the order.
2017 SCC online KAR 4444 – Dr.H.C. Sathyan Vs. State of Karnataka (Karnataka High Court) As per Karnataka Government (Transaction of Business) Rules 1977 the Secretary/in-charge minister of a department is competent to grant sanction for prosecution to the officers of that Department.It is too much to expect from the sanctioning authority to use any specific words in the sanction order. The courts have to magnanimously deal with the procedure contemplated in law for issue of sanction order by looking into the overall materials on record placed before the court. Small doubts or confusions are not sufficient to uproot the sanction order. Any narrow or too hyper technical analysis of facts and interpretation of the provisions would defeat the very legislative policy. (This judgement is confirmed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the Special Leave to Appeal (Crl) No. 9158/2017 dated 01-12-2017, Review petition (Crl) No. 343/2018 dated 17-07-2018 and Curative petition (R) No. 60/2018) dated 09-04-2019) 4 Judge Bench
Mr. Syed Zameer Pasha Vs. State of Karnataka (Criminal Revision Petition No. 1313 of 2019 dated 30-01-2020 (Karnataka High Court) – Section 19(1) of the amended PC Act would apply only to the offences committed under Section 13 of the amended PC Act. Therefore, prior sanction to prosecute a retired Government servant is not required, if the offence committed by him was under Section 13(1)(e) of the un-amended PC Act.
(2018) SCC online 2255 – State of Mizoram Vs. Dr.C. Sangnghina – If the accused is discharged for want of proper sanction, there is no bar for filing fresh/supplementary charge sheet, after obtaining valid sanction for prosecution. The principles of double jeopardy will not apply
(2016) 9 SCC 598 – L. Narayana Swamy Vs. State of Karnataka and others – If as on the date of taking cognizance, the public servant ceases to hold the office which he had held as public servant at the time of commission of alleged offence, no sanction is required for his prosecution, even if, he thereafter continued to be a public servant, in a different capacity/office.
(2007) 1 SCC 1 – Prakash Singh Badal and another Vs. State of Punjab and others - No prosecution for sanction is required for the offences committed by a public servant under Section 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120B I.P.C. Absence of sanction to prosecute can be agitated at any time. But, want of valid/proper sanction has to be raised during trial.
(1998) 4 SCC 626 – P.V. Narasimha Rao Vs. State – For prosecution of Member of Parliament, until legislation is made, criminal court shall obtain the permission of Chairman of Rajya Sabha/Speaker of the Lok Sabha, as the case may be.