Madras High Court· 23 July 2026

Can a statement made during investigation by the officer who signed a sanction order affect its validity?

P.Selvaraja v. The State

Crl.O.P.No.28172 of 2024 · Crl.O.P.No.28172 of 2024
Coram: Justice G.K.Ilanthiraiyan

🔖 Save this judgment 🔔 Follow s.19(1)(b) Prevention of Corrupt…📬 Get today's judgments

View the original judgment PDFFree to read. To download it — or the LexStreak typeset copy with the headnote and Points of Law — create an account; downloads are part of the Pro plan.

Answer

No. The validity of a sanction cannot be determined by an isolated statement made during the course of investigation by the signing authority, particularly where the order itself unequivocally discloses that it was issued in exercise of the powers conferred. Such a statement cannot override, alter or diminish the legal effect of an official order issued in accordance with law, and a witness's understanding or description of the legal character of an official act cannot determine its validity.

Headnote

Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 — s.19(1)(b) — Constitution of India — Art.166 — Art.166(2) — Sanction to prosecute — Authentication — Quashing — Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 — s.19(1)(b) — Constitution of India — Art.166 — Sanction signed by the Secretary for the Governor — Held: Neither the section nor Article 166 requires the Governor personally to sanction; executive action must be expressed in his name and authenticated as the Rules of Business prescribe, and a Secretary who so signs acts for the State Government. (¶24, ¶26, ¶27) Constitution of India — Art.166(2) — Authentication — Order not to be questioned — Held further: An order authenticated in the manner prescribed shall not be called in question on the ground that it was not made or executed by the Governor, and executive action carries a presumption of regularity. (¶25, ¶30) Sanction to prosecute — Statement of the signing authority — Legal effect of the order unaffected — Held further: A statement made during investigation by the officer who signed cannot override, alter or diminish the legal effect of an official order; a witness's description of the character of an official act does not determine its validity. (¶28, ¶29) Quashing — Disputed facts and evidence — Matters for the trial — Held further: On a petition to quash, the Court cannot appreciate the witnesses' statements, record findings on disputed facts, or decide whether the prosecution is malicious; those belong to the trial. Petition dismissed. (¶34, ¶37, ¶38)

In the Court's own words

Paragraph 28Even if such a constitutional or statutory interpretation is false, the validity of a sanction cannot be determined merely by an isolated statement made during the course of investigation by the signing authority i.e., the Secretary to the Government herein, particularly when the sanction order itself unequivocally discloses that it was issued by the Governor in exercise of the powers vested under Article 166(1) and Section 19(1)(b) of the PC Act. The statement of the Secretary under Section 161 Cr.P.C. cannot override, alter or diminish the legal effect of an official order issued in accordance with law.

Paragraph 29Even assuming that the Secretary, while giving his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C., loosely described the grant of sanction as one accorded by him personally, such an expression cannot be read divorced from the constitutional and statutory framework governing governmental action. A witness's understanding or description of the legal character of an official act cannot determine its validity. What is of relevance is whether the sanction emanated from the competent authority through the prescribed legal procedure and whether the order bears the necessary authentication as required under Article 166 of the Constitution and the applicable Rules of Business.

Acts & Sections

s.19(1)(b) Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988Art.163 Constitution of IndiaArt.166 Constitution of IndiaArt.166(2) Constitution of Indias.528 Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023s.161 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973Tamil Nadu Government Business Rules and Secretariat Instructions, 1978

One judgment a day. That's the whole habit.

Read the full text of P.Selvaraja v. The State — and get the Supreme Court's output as a five-minute daily read, with plain-language headnotes and the questions each judgment settles.

Create my free account

Free forever plan · 30 seconds · data stays in India

Open the full judgment →

Also decided in this judgment

Must the Governor personally accord sanction to prosecute a State employee under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988?Can an order issued in the name of the Governor be challenged on the ground that he did not himself make it?How far may a High Court go into the facts on a petition to quash a charge sheet?

Plain-language answer prepared by the LexStreak Editorial Desk — verify against the judgment. Source: Madras High Court. Corrections