(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—
(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 without filing a complaint in a competent court:
Provided further that the appropriate Government or any competent authority shall convey its decision on the sanction within a period of three months:
Provided also that in case where consultation is required with the Attorney General or the Advocate General, such period may, for reasons to be recorded in writing, be extended by a further period of one month.
(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.
Legal Commentary & Landmark Judgments: Section 19
Section 19 provides the statutory requirement of previous sanction from the competent authority before any court can take cognizance of an offence against a public servant.
Crucially, sub-section (1) second proviso prescribes a strict statutory timeframe: the sanctioning authority must endeavor to convey its decision within three months, extendable by one additional month where legal consultation is necessary. Under sub-section (3), no finding, sentence, or order passed by a Special Judge shall be reversed on appeal on the ground of any error, omission, or irregularity in the sanction unless a failure of justice has in fact been occasioned thereby.
Section 19 is a perpetual focal point of criminal litigation. While designed to protect honest officers from vexatious complaints by disgruntled litigants, corrupt officials historically exploited bureaucratic lethargy to delay trials indefinitely. The Supreme Court's three-month doctrine and Section 19(3) curing of technical defects have significantly curbed dilatory sanction strategies.