Clauses (b) and (c) of Section 19(3) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, are reproduced below:
“(3) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974),—
*** ***
(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.”
It can thus be seen that the proceedings in a corruption case cannot be stayed either or the ground of any defect, etc., in the sanction order [clause (b)] or on any other ground [clause (c)].
In fact, in the case of Satya Narayan Sharma v. State of Rajasthan, (2001) 8 SCC 607 : AIR 2001 SC 2856, the Supreme Court has also held that the proceedings in a case under Prevention of Corruption Act cannot be stayed.
Accordingly, this order of the high court, of staying the trial, can be challenged in the Supreme Court. It is advisable and preferable that the Anti-Corruption Bureau should challenge this order, instead of you doing it is the complainant.
Dr. Ashok Dhamija is a New Delhi based Supreme Court Advocate and author of law books. Read more about him by clicking here. List of his Forum Replies. List of his other articles. List of his Quora Answers. List of his YouTube Videos.
.
