Central Bureau of Investigation v. Jagat Ram

Held: Yes – Under s.19(3)(a), no finding, sentence or order by a Special Judge shall be reversed by a court of appeal on the ground of absence, error, omission or irregularity in the sanction – However, such a restraint against reversal or alteration is subject to the opinion of the court that failure of justice has in fact been occasioned thereby – Further, s.19(4) provides that while construing whether the absence, error, omission or irregularity has occasioned or resulted in failure of justice, the court will examine the fact that whether an objection could and should have been raised at an earlier stage in the proceedings – High Court held that the findings of fact of the Trial Court were based on evidence and the prosecution proved the demand and acceptance which the defence failed to rebut and thus, a presumption arose u/s.20 of the Act regarding acceptance of money – High Court took up the issue of sanction, rather than the proof of sanction on its own without * Author 534 [2024] 12 S.C.R. the assistance of the counsel for the respondent – Judgment of High Court set aside to the extent it set aside the sanction and the consequent acquittal – Matter remanded to High Court for considering the question of legality of the order of sanction u/s.19 to consider if the irregularity, if any, has occasioned or resulted in a failure of justice – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.465. [Paras 6, 14, 15] Words and Phrases – “Failure of Justice” – Discussed. Case Law Cited