High Court Cannot Direct Trial Courts to Examine Sanctioning Authority Before Framing Charge, Says Supreme Court
A Division Bench of the Supreme Court set aside High Court guidelines that mandated pre-charge examination of the sanctioning authority in Prevention of Corruption Act cases, holding that no such procedure exists in the CrPC.
The Supreme Court has set aside guidelines issued by the Madhya Pradesh High Court that required trial courts to examine the sanctioning authority under Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, even before framing a charge in cases under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. A Division Bench of Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra and Justice Atul S. Chandurkar, deciding Criminal Appeal Nos. 2191–2192 of 2025 on 10 June 2026, held that the High Court had no jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution to introduce a new procedural stage that the CrPC does not provide for. The Court allowed the appeal to the limited extent of striking down paragraphs 32 and 33 of the High Court's order dated 08.05.2020, even though the underlying prosecution had ended in acquittal.
How the Dispute Reached the Supreme Court
The first respondent, Ravi Shankar Singh, had filed a writ petition in the Madhya Pradesh High Court seeking to quash the sanction for prosecution granted against him under the PC Act. The High Court dismissed that writ petition, leaving the sanction intact. However, while doing so, it went further and issued directions—contained in paragraphs 32 and 33 of its order dated 08.05.2020—laying down guidelines for all trial courts handling PC Act cases.
By the time the matter reached the Supreme Court, Ravi Shankar Singh had already been acquitted of the charges under Sections 7, 13(1)(d), and 13(2) of the PC Act. The question of sanction validity had therefore become infructuous. The State of Madhya Pradesh had earlier moved a review petition before the High Court, which was also dismissed on 02.11.2020 in R.P. No. 1010/2020. The State nonetheless pressed the appeals, arguing that the guidelines would create difficulties in perpetuity across all criminal trials.
What the High Court Had Directed
The High Court's guidelines in paragraphs 32 and 33 directed every trial court to examine the sanctioning authority as a witness under Section 311 CrPC before framing a charge—even where the accused had raised no challenge to the sanction. The reasoning offered by the High Court was practical: if the sanction was found defective at that early stage, the accused could be discharged before evidence commenced, saving court time and avoiding the accused later claiming benefit of delayed trial or autrefois acquit.
The High Court also directed that if the sanction was found fundamentally defective—either because it was passed by an incompetent authority or without application of mind—the trial court should discharge the accused and return the chargesheet to the investigating agency. The agency could then seek fresh sanction and refile. The directions were stated to be prospective and were expressly said to leave untouched the High Court's powers under Section 482 and Sections 397 and 401 CrPC.
The Supreme Court's Reasoning
The Court found the High Court's directions unsustainable on two distinct grounds: statutory interpretation and constitutional jurisdiction.
On the statute, the Court examined the place of Section 311 within the CrPC's architecture. The provision falls under Chapter XXIV, which deals with general provisions as to inquiries and trials. Trial procedure itself is prescribed in Chapters XV to XXI. The Court held that the general power to summon or examine a witness at any stage of a proceeding under Section 311 cannot be read as inserting a mandatory new step in the conduct of trial—one that must precede the framing of charge. The CrPC prescribes no such step.
The Court was direct: “a new stage for trial cannot be introduced by a judicial fiat.” Trial in criminal cases, including under the PC Act, must be conducted in the manner provided for in the CrPC and the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, read with the PC Act. The Court rejected the respondents' argument that Section 311's language—permitting examination “at any stage”—itself justified the directions.
On constitutional jurisdiction, the Court held that the High Court, in exercise of its power under Article 226, cannot rewrite the CrPC and direct all Sessions Courts and Special Courts under the PC Act to follow a procedure that the legislature has not enacted. The power of judicial review does not extend to legislating a new procedural stage for criminal trials.
The State had argued that the guidelines would create difficulties not only in PC Act cases but across other serious offences as well. The Court proceeded to decide the jurisdictional point, treating it as a live issue worth resolving despite the underlying acquittal having rendered the sanction question moot.
The Companion Appeal
Criminal Appeal Nos. 2904–2905 of 2025 were filed by Kamta Prasad, whose counsel Mr. Naveen Kumar supported the High Court's directions and guidelines. In view of the order passed in the main appeals, the Court dismissed these companion appeals as well.
Order
The Supreme Court set aside paragraphs 32 and 33 of the Madhya Pradesh High Court's order dated 08.05.2020. Criminal Appeal Nos. 2191–2192 of 2025 were allowed to that limited extent. Criminal Appeal Nos. 2904–2905 of 2025 were dismissed. All pending applications in both sets of appeals were disposed of. The order was passed on 10 June 2026.