When Parliament amended the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 with effect from 26 July 2018, it extended the requirement of previous sanction under Section 19 to persons who had ceased to hold the office in which the offence was allegedly committed. What the amendment did not say clearly was how it applied to prosecutions already in the system. In Court on its own Motion v. State, CRL.REF. 1/2019, decided on 6 August 2026, a Division Bench of the Delhi High Court comprising Justice Navin Chawla and Justice Ravinder Dudeja answered a reference from a Special Judge on precisely that question.
How the question arose
Section 19(1) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 bars a court from taking cognizance of offences under Sections 7, 11, 13 and 15 of the Act except with the previous sanction of the competent authority. For three decades the provision was read as protecting serving public servants: once the accused had retired, resigned or moved on from the office in question, no sanction was required and the trial proceeded without it. Many pending prosecutions of retired officers rested on that footing.
The Prevention of Corruption (Amendment) Act, 2018, which came into force on 26 July 2018, altered the text. The sanction requirement now extends to a person "who has ceased to hold the office" during which the offence is alleged to have been committed. Special Judges were immediately confronted with a practical difficulty: what of trials against retired officers in which cognizance had been taken years earlier, without sanction, when none was required? A Special Judge referred the question to the High Court, and the reference was registered as CRL.REF. 1/2019.
The questions referred
The reference put four questions before the Division Bench: whether cognizance under the Act is taken of the offence or of the offender; what the relevant date is for applying the 2018 amendment to pending trials, and whether the amendment, being beneficial to the accused, applies retrospectively; whether sanction is necessary to continue prosecuting a former public servant where cognizance had already been taken before 26 July 2018; and, generally, any other question concerning the operation of the Amendment Act. The fourth question was framed too broadly to admit of a specific answer and was not separately dealt with.
What the Division Bench held
The Bench, in a judgment reserved on 3 July 2026 and pronounced on 6 August 2026, gave the amendment what may be described as a dual temporal operation, anchored to the date of cognizance.
Cognizance taken before 26 July 2018
The case remains unaffected by the amendment. Cognizance validly taken without sanction, at a time when none was required, is not disturbed. There is no requirement to reopen the proceedings or to obtain sanction afresh, and the trial continues.
Cognizance yet to be taken as on 26 July 2018
The amended Section 19 applies, even where the offence itself was committed before the amendment. Previous sanction is required before cognizance can be taken against a former public servant, including one who has retired or now holds a different post.
In that sense the amendment reaches back to offences committed before 26 July 2018 — a retired officer facing a fresh prosecution for old conduct now has the protection of the sanction requirement — while leaving intact everything already validly done. The Bench also emphasised that the Prevention of Corruption Act, as a special statute, overrides the general criminal procedure on the point: the bar in Section 19(1) operates at the moment of cognizance, and it is the position on that date which governs.
Why the anchor is the date of cognizance
The choice of cognizance as the dividing line follows the structure of Section 19 itself. The provision is not addressed to the investigating agency or to the accused; it is addressed to the court, and it restrains a single judicial act — taking cognizance. An act validly performed under the law as it stood cannot be invalidated by a later change in that law absent clear retrospective language. Conversely, where the restrained act has yet to occur, the court must apply the law in force on the day it acts. The dual operation described by the Bench is the consequence of applying that ordinary principle to an amended cognizance bar.
The judgment answers a reference and therefore settles the position for the Special Courts in Delhi. Litigants elsewhere should note that questions concerning the temporal operation of the 2018 amendment have generated litigation in several jurisdictions, and the position in a given case will depend on the law applicable in that State and any pronouncement of the Supreme Court holding the field.
Practical consequences
For pending trials in which cognizance was taken before 26 July 2018 against retired officers, the judgment forecloses one recurring objection: applications contending that the trial cannot continue without fresh sanction will not succeed on that ground. For matters at the pre-cognizance stage — including cases where a chargesheet has been filed but cognizance is yet to be taken — the prosecuting agency must obtain sanction even though the accused has since demitted office. Counsel on both sides will need to establish, from the record, the precise date on which cognizance was taken, since that single fact now determines whether the sanction requirement applies.
The judgment also serves as a reminder that the 2018 amendment restructured the Act's protective architecture at more than one level: Section 17A now regulates the commencement of an enquiry or investigation into decisions taken in the discharge of official functions, while the widened Section 19 regulates cognizance. Each operates at its own stage, and each raises its own questions of temporal application.
Frequently Asked Questions
What changed in Section 19 of the PC Act in 2018?
Before 26 July 2018, previous sanction was required only for prosecuting a person who was still a public servant, and the settled position was that no sanction was needed once the accused had retired or demitted the relevant office. The 2018 amendment extended the sanction requirement to persons who have ceased to hold the office during which the offence is alleged to have been committed.
Does a pending corruption trial now require fresh sanction if the accused has retired?
Not where the court had already taken cognizance before 26 July 2018. The Division Bench held that such cases remain unaffected: there is no requirement to reopen them or to obtain sanction afresh. The amended requirement applies where cognizance was yet to be taken as on 26 July 2018 or is taken thereafter.
What is the difference between sanction under Section 19 PC Act and Section 197 CrPC?
Section 19 of the PC Act governs offences under that Act and operates as a bar to the court taking cognizance without previous sanction. Section 197 CrPC, now Section 218 BNSS, protects public servants for acts done in the discharge of official duty in respect of other offences. The two operate in different fields and the tests are not identical.
What is Section 17A of the amended PC Act?
Section 17A, also introduced by the 2018 amendment, requires previous approval of the competent authority before a police officer conducts any enquiry, inquiry or investigation into an offence alleged to have been committed by a public servant, where the alleged offence relates to a decision taken or recommendation made in discharge of official functions. It operates at the investigation stage, before the question of sanction under Section 19 arises.