Can the prosecution of a senior municipal water supply officer be quashed in the Punjab and Haryana High Court due to the missing formal sanction?

Sources
Source Judgment: Read judgment
Case Analysis: Read case analysis

Suppose a senior officer in the municipal water supply department, who is responsible for authorising disbursements from the municipal treasury to contractors for pipe‑laying work, records a payment of a modest sum in the official cash‑book and affixes his thumb‑impression as verification, while the name of the contractor entered is fictitious and no such contractor ever receives the money.

The investigating agency files an FIR alleging that the officer forged his thumb‑impression and misappropriated public funds, invoking provisions that punish forgery of documents and criminal misappropriation of property. The officer is taken into custody, and the prosecution proceeds to charge him under the relevant sections of the Indian Penal Code. At the trial stage, the defence counsel argues that the thumb‑impression could have been a clerical error and that the money, if any, might have been transferred to a legitimate contractor, thereby challenging the evidential basis of the case.

While the evidential defence raises genuine doubts, the more decisive obstacle to the prosecution is procedural. The offence of forgery and the alleged misappropriation arise directly from the officer’s official duties of authorising and recording disbursements. Under the Code of Criminal Procedure, a public servant cannot be prosecuted for an offence “directly concerned with” the performance of his official functions unless a formal sanction order has been issued by the competent authority. In this scenario, the municipal commissioner issued only an informal note indicating that sanction had been “conveyed,” but no formal order was ever signed or communicated to the investigating agency. The note was later described by the commissioner as a clerical mistake.

Because the sanction requirement is a jurisdictional prerequisite, the absence of a valid sanction renders the entire criminal proceeding infirm, irrespective of any evidential disputes. The trial court, however, proceeds to convict the officer, relying on the prosecution’s narrative and the thumb‑impression as proof of intent. The officer’s counsel files an appeal, contending that the conviction is illegal for lack of sanction, but the appellate court dismisses the argument, focusing instead on the alleged forgery.

At this juncture, the appropriate remedy is not a further appeal on the merits of the evidence but a petition to quash the criminal proceedings on the ground of jurisdictional defect. The High Court of Punjab and Haryana possesses the constitutional power under article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a writ of certiorari or mandamus to set aside proceedings that are illegal, unconstitutional, or otherwise infirm. Additionally, the inherent powers of the court under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure enable it to intervene when a criminal proceeding is bound to be an abuse of the process of law.

Consequently, the officer’s legal team drafts a petition before the Punjab and Haryana High Court seeking the quashing of the FIR, the charge‑sheet, and the conviction on the sole ground that no valid sanction under the relevant provision of the Code of Criminal Procedure was obtained. The petition sets out the factual matrix, highlights the statutory requirement of sanction for offences “directly concerned with” official duties, and points out the absence of a formal sanction order. It also argues that the High Court’s inherent powers are apt to prevent the continuation of a prosecution that is fundamentally defective.

A lawyer in Punjab and Haryana High Court familiar with criminal‑procedure jurisprudence would advise that the petition must be supported by a certified copy of the informal note, the correspondence indicating the mistake, and the statutory provisions that make sanction mandatory. The petition would request that the court issue a writ of certiorari to quash the criminal proceedings and direct the lower courts to release the officer from any further liability, including any pending bail or sentence execution.

The High Court, upon examining the petition, would first ascertain whether the alleged offences indeed fall within the ambit of “directly concerned with” the officer’s official functions. Applying the established “by virtue of the office” test, the court would likely conclude that the alleged forgery of the thumb‑impression and the purported misappropriation are inseparably linked to the officer’s duty of authorising disbursements. Hence, the sanction requirement is triggered.

Having established the jurisdictional defect, the court would then consider whether the petition falls within its power to quash the proceedings. Section 482 CrPC empowers the High Court to intervene when a criminal proceeding is bound to be an abuse of the process of law, and the lack of sanction is a classic example of such an abuse. Moreover, article 226 provides a broader constitutional safeguard, allowing the court to issue appropriate writs when a legal right is infringed. The court would therefore be well within its authority to grant the relief sought.

In granting the petition, the Punjab and Haryana High Court would set aside the FIR, the charge‑sheet, and the conviction, thereby restoring the officer’s liberty and clearing his criminal record. The order would also direct the investigating agency to close the case file and to return any seized documents to the officer. Such a decision would underscore the principle that procedural safeguards, especially the sanction requirement for public servants, are not mere technicalities but essential protections against the misuse of criminal law.

The outcome illustrates why an ordinary factual defence was insufficient at the appellate stage. Even if the thumb‑impression were proven forged, the prosecution could not lawfully proceed without a valid sanction. The procedural defect eclipsed the evidential issues, making the High Court the proper forum for redress. By filing a petition for quashing before the Punjab and Haryana High Court, the accused availed himself of the most effective remedy to nullify an unlawful prosecution.

Legal practitioners, including lawyers in Chandigarh High Court and those practising in the Punjab and Haryana jurisdiction, routinely encounter similar situations where the absence of sanction is the decisive factor. Their expertise in drafting precise petitions that invoke both constitutional and statutory provisions ensures that the High Court can swiftly intervene, preserving the rule of law and protecting public servants from unwarranted criminal liability.

Question: Does the absence of a formally signed sanction order from the municipal commissioner render the criminal prosecution of the senior water‑supply officer void, and what legal consequences follow from such a procedural defect?

Answer: The legal framework governing the prosecution of public servants imposes a jurisdictional prerequisite: before a court can entertain an offence that is “directly concerned with” the performance of official duties, a valid sanction order must be obtained from the competent authority. In the present facts, the municipal commissioner issued only an informal note suggesting that sanction had been “conveyed,” but no signed order was ever communicated to the investigating agency. This informal note lacks the statutory hallmarks of a sanction—namely, a written order on official letter‑head, signed by the authorized officer, and expressly authorising prosecution. Because the sanction requirement is jurisdictional, its absence defeats the court’s power to entertain the case, irrespective of any evidential disputes concerning the thumb‑impression or the alleged diversion of funds. The High Court, upon being approached, would treat the defect as fatal and would be obliged to set aside the FIR, the charge‑sheet, and any subsequent conviction. The effect is twofold: first, the criminal proceedings are declared ultra vires and consequently quashed; second, any collateral consequences—such as custody, bail conditions, or attachment of property—must be reversed, and the accused is entitled to restoration of liberty and reputation. The doctrine of nullity operates automatically; the prosecution cannot cure the defect by later producing a retroactive sanction, as the law requires the sanction to precede the initiation of proceedings. A lawyer in Chandigarh High Court would therefore advise the accused to move promptly for a writ of certiorari, emphasizing that the procedural lapse defeats the jurisdiction of the trial court and the appellate court alike. The High Court’s intervention not only restores the accused’s rights but also reinforces the constitutional safeguard that procedural protections for public servants are not mere technicalities but essential barriers against arbitrary prosecution.

Question: What specific High Court remedy is appropriate to quash the FIR and conviction, and how do the court’s inherent powers under criminal procedure interact with its constitutional authority to issue writs?

Answer: The most fitting remedy is a petition under article 226 of the Constitution seeking a writ of certiorari to set aside the criminal proceedings, complemented by a prayer for mandamus directing the lower courts and the investigating agency to close the case file. The High Court’s inherent powers, derived from the criminal procedure code, empower it to intervene when a proceeding is bound to be an abuse of process. In this scenario, the lack of a valid sanction makes the prosecution an abuse of process, thereby activating the inherent jurisdiction. Simultaneously, article 226 provides a broader constitutional canvas, allowing the court to issue any appropriate writ when a legal right is infringed. The two sources of authority are not mutually exclusive; rather, they reinforce each other. The petition would articulate that the sanction defect is a jurisdictional flaw that renders the FIR illegal, and that continuing the trial would contravene the rule of law. Lawyers in Chandigarh High Court routinely frame such petitions to highlight both the statutory infirmity and the constitutional violation of the accused’s right to due process. The court, after scrutinising the petition, would first determine whether the offences fall within the ambit of “directly concerned with” official duties—a factual inquiry that, based on the officer’s role in authorising disbursements, would be affirmed. Once this nexus is established, the court would apply the sanction requirement and find it unmet. Consequently, the High Court would issue a certiorari quashing the FIR, the charge‑sheet, and the conviction, and may also direct the release of any seized documents. The combined use of inherent power and constitutional writ jurisdiction ensures a robust remedy that not only nullifies the defective prosecution but also sends a clear message that procedural safeguards cannot be bypassed.

Question: How should the defence demonstrate that the alleged forgery of the thumb‑impression and the purported misappropriation are “directly concerned with” the officer’s official duties, and why is this test pivotal for invoking the sanction requirement?

Answer: The defence must establish a factual linkage between the acts complained of and the statutory functions entrusted to the officer. This involves showing that the officer’s official remit includes authorising payments, recording them in the cash‑book, and obtaining thumb‑impressions as verification. By mapping each step of the alleged misconduct onto these duties, the defence can argue that the alleged forgery and misappropriation are inseparable from the performance of official functions. Evidence such as the officer’s job description, internal manuals, and prior practice of using thumb‑impressions for disbursement verification will be pivotal. Moreover, the defence can highlight that the alleged fictitious contractor was entered in the very register that the officer is mandated to maintain, thereby demonstrating that the act was undertaken “by virtue of the office.” This test is critical because the sanction provision is triggered only when the offence is directly concerned with official duties; if the act were merely incidental or unrelated, the sanction would not be required. By proving the direct connection, the defence underscores that the prosecution cannot proceed without a valid sanction, turning the procedural defect into a decisive defence. A lawyer in Punjab and Haryana High Court would craft arguments that the alleged conduct is not a personal fraud detached from official responsibilities but a misuse of the officer’s statutory authority, thereby falling squarely within the ambit of the sanction rule. The court’s acceptance of this nexus compels it to examine whether the requisite sanction was obtained, and the absence of such sanction would automatically invalidate the proceedings, irrespective of the strength of the evidential case. Thus, the “directly concerned” test serves as the linchpin that transforms a factual dispute into a procedural bar, safeguarding public servants from prosecution that bypasses statutory safeguards.

Question: What procedural steps and evidentiary requirements must be satisfied when filing a petition to quash the criminal proceedings before the Punjab and Haryana High Court, and how do supporting documents influence the court’s assessment?

Answer: The petitioner must first draft a comprehensive petition under article 226, clearly stating the relief sought—quashing of the FIR, charge‑sheet, and conviction. The petition must set out the factual matrix, identify the jurisdictional defect, and invoke both the constitutional and inherent powers of the court. It must be accompanied by a certified copy of the informal note issued by the municipal commissioner, any correspondence indicating the note’s later characterization as a clerical mistake, and the original FIR and charge‑sheet. These documents serve as primary evidence of the absence of a formal sanction. Additionally, the petitioner should annex the officer’s service records, job description, and any internal circulars that establish the duty to obtain thumb‑impressions, thereby supporting the “directly concerned” analysis. Lawyers in Punjab and Haryana High Court will ensure that the petition complies with filing rules, including payment of court fees, verification of facts, and service of notice to the prosecution. Once filed, the court may issue a notice to the State, inviting a response. The prosecution’s reply will likely contest the jurisdictional claim, but the court will focus on the documentary evidence of the missing sanction. The court may also call for affidavits from the municipal commissioner or the finance department to confirm that no formal order was ever issued. The strength of the supporting documents determines the court’s confidence in the procedural defect; a certified copy of the informal note, coupled with a declaration of its mistake, creates a clear evidentiary trail that the sanction was never validly granted. Upon satisfaction of these procedural and evidentiary requisites, the High Court is empowered to issue a writ of certiorari, quash the proceedings, and direct the release of any seized material, thereby restoring the accused’s liberty and clearing the criminal record.

Question: How might the prosecution argue that the sanction requirement does not apply to the forgery allegation, and why is such an argument unlikely to succeed in light of established legal principles?

Answer: The prosecution could contend that the forgery charge pertains to the falsification of a thumb‑impression, which is a personal act rather than an official function, and therefore falls outside the ambit of offences “directly concerned with” the officer’s duties. It might further argue that the forgery is a general criminal act, not intrinsically linked to the disbursement process, and that the sanction provision is intended only for offences arising from the exercise of official powers, such as misappropriation. However, this line of reasoning is weak because the forgery of the thumb‑impression is inextricably tied to the officer’s statutory duty to authenticate payments. The thumb‑impression serves as the official verification mechanism; tampering with it directly undermines the integrity of the disbursement function. Established jurisprudence holds that when the alleged act is performed “by virtue of the office,” the sanction requirement is triggered, regardless of whether the specific act is traditionally classified as forgery. Lawyers in Punjab and Haryana High Court would emphasize that the offence cannot be isolated from the official context; the very purpose of the thumb‑impression is to provide a legal safeguard for public funds. Consequently, the court is likely to view the forgery as an abuse of official authority, thereby satisfying the “directly concerned” test. Moreover, the procedural defect—absence of a valid sanction—remains fatal irrespective of the substantive merits of the forgery allegation. The High Court, guided by precedent, would therefore reject the prosecution’s argument, affirm that the sanction requirement applies, and proceed to quash the proceedings on jurisdictional grounds.

Question: Why does the appropriate remedy for the officer lie before the Punjab and Haryana High Court and not before a lower tribunal or the appellate court that has already considered the merits?

Answer: The officer’s grievance is rooted in a jurisdictional defect that can only be corrected by a court possessing constitutional and inherent powers to examine the legality of a criminal proceeding. The Constitution empowers the Punjab and Haryana High Court to issue writs for the enforcement of fundamental rights and for the removal of legal impediments that arise from a breach of law. When a prosecution is launched without a valid sanction, the defect is not merely evidential but statutory, rendering the entire process void ab initio. The High Court’s authority under the constitutional provision to entertain a petition for quashing, coupled with the inherent power to prevent abuse of process, makes it the sole forum capable of nullifying the FIR, charge sheet and conviction. A lower tribunal or an appellate court that has already ruled on the factual matrix lacks the jurisdiction to revisit the sanction requirement because that issue was not raised as a preliminary objection and is not a matter of appeal on the merits. The procedural route therefore demands a fresh petition that sets out the factual background, demonstrates the absence of a formal sanction order, and invokes the writ jurisdiction of the Punjab and Haryana High Court. A lawyer in Punjab and Haryana High Court would structure the petition to request a writ of certiorari, seeking the quashing of the criminal proceedings on the ground that the prosecution is legally infirm. The High Court’s decision would have a binding effect, compelling the investigating agency to close the file, releasing the officer from custody, and restoring his reputation. No other forum can provide the comprehensive relief that addresses both the procedural illegality and the consequent deprivation of liberty.

Question: Why might the accused look for a lawyer in Chandigarh High Court even though the petition for quashing is to be filed in the Punjab and Haryana High Court?

Answer: The search for a lawyer in Chandigarh High Court is driven by practical considerations of proximity, expertise and the fact that many practitioners maintain chambers in both the Punjab and Haryana High Court and the Chandigarh High Court. The officer resides in the municipal area that falls within the jurisdiction of the Chandigarh High Court, and the local bar there has a deep familiarity with cases involving public servants, sanction requirements and writ practice. A lawyer in Chandigarh High Court can provide immediate counsel, assist in gathering the informal note, the correspondence and the verification of the sanction defect, and coordinate with counsel who will appear before the Punjab and Haryana High Court. Moreover, the procedural filing may require service of notice on the investigating agency and the complainant, who are located in Chandigarh, making a local lawyer essential for efficient service and for handling any interlocutory applications that may arise in the district court before the matter escalates to the High Court. Lawyers in Chandigarh High Court also have experience in drafting petitions that invoke both constitutional and statutory provisions, ensuring that the language satisfies the High Court’s requirements for a writ petition. While the final hearing will be before the Punjab and Haryana High Court, the preparatory work, evidence collation and strategic advice can be effectively managed by a lawyer in Chandigarh High Court, who will work in tandem with a lawyer in Punjab and Haryana High Court to present a seamless case. This collaborative approach maximizes the chances of a successful quashing of the proceedings and avoids procedural delays that could arise from a lack of local representation.

Question: How does the lack of a formal sanction order make a factual defence based on the thumb impression and alleged misappropriation insufficient at this stage of the proceedings?

Answer: A factual defence that challenges the authenticity of the thumb impression or disputes the flow of funds addresses the evidential burden, but it does not cure a defect that strikes at the very foundation of the prosecution. The law requires that any offence which is directly concerned with the performance of official duties must be preceded by a valid sanction from the competent authority. When that prerequisite is missing, the prosecution is illegal, and the court is barred from entertaining any evidence because the case cannot lawfully proceed. Consequently, even if the accused were able to prove that the thumb impression was a clerical error or that the money reached a legitimate contractor, the trial court would still be acting beyond its jurisdiction by entertaining the case. The High Court’s power to quash rests on the principle that procedural safeguards are not mere technicalities but essential protections against misuse of criminal law. The absence of a sanction therefore eclipses the factual disputes, making them irrelevant to the question of jurisdiction. This explains why the accused must seek a remedy that attacks the procedural infirmity rather than continue to argue the merits of the evidence. A lawyer in Punjab and Haryana High Court would argue that the prosecution is void ab initio, and that any conviction based on an unlawful process must be set aside irrespective of the truth of the allegations. The High Court, upon recognizing the lack of sanction, will dismiss the FIR and charge sheet, thereby rendering the factual defence moot and restoring the accused’s liberty.

Question: What procedural steps must be taken to file a petition for quashing the criminal proceedings and what are the practical implications for the accused, the complainant and the investigating agency?

Answer: The first step is to engage a lawyer in Punjab and Haryana High Court who will draft a petition that sets out the factual matrix, identifies the jurisdictional defect and invokes the writ jurisdiction of the High Court. The petition must be verified on oath, must attach a certified copy of the informal note, the correspondence indicating the mistake, and any other documents that demonstrate the absence of a formal sanction. The petitioner must also serve a copy of the petition on the investigating agency, the complainant and the trial court, complying with the rules of service. After filing, the court may issue a notice to the respondents, inviting them to show cause why the proceedings should not be quashed. The petitioner may also move an interim application for release from custody, arguing that continued detention is illegal in the absence of a valid sanction. If the High Court is satisfied that the sanction requirement is mandatory and that no order was issued, it will grant the writ of certiorari, quash the FIR, the charge sheet and the conviction, and direct the investigating agency to close the file and return any seized material. The practical effect for the accused is immediate release, removal of the criminal record and restoration of his professional standing. For the complainant, the dismissal means that the allegations cannot be pursued further unless a valid sanction is obtained, which is unlikely given the procedural lapse. The investigating agency must file a closure report, archive the case and refrain from any further action, thereby conserving resources. Lawyers in Chandigarh High Court may assist in coordinating the service of notice and in handling any local objections, while lawyers in Punjab and Haryana High Court focus on the substantive writ petition, ensuring that the procedural defect is highlighted and that the High Court’s inherent powers are invoked to prevent abuse of process.

Question: How can the defence establish that the lack of a formal sanction order renders the prosecution infringe the jurisdictional prerequisite, and what evidentiary material should be marshalled to prove the informal note was not a valid sanction?

Answer: The defence must first demonstrate that the alleged offences fall within the ambit of offences “directly concerned with” the accused’s official duties, thereby triggering the statutory sanction requirement. This involves linking the act of authorising a payment and affixing a thumb‑impression to the official function of disbursing municipal funds. Once that nexus is established, the focus shifts to the procedural defect: the absence of a valid sanction order. The defence should obtain the original informal note purportedly indicating sanction, the internal correspondence that later described it as a clerical error, and any minutes of meetings or orders from the municipal commissioner that show no formal sign‑off was ever issued. Certified copies of the note, together with a declaration from the commissioner confirming the mistake, will create a factual record that the sanction was never lawfully granted. Expert testimony on administrative practice can further underscore that a mere informal communication does not satisfy the legal requirement for sanction. The defence should also request the investigating agency’s file to reveal that no sanction order was produced during investigation or trial. By presenting this documentary trail, the defence can argue that the prosecution proceeded without jurisdiction, making the entire proceeding void irrespective of the merits of the evidence. A lawyer in Punjab and Haryana High Court would advise that the petition must articulate the legal principle that jurisdictional defects cannot be cured by subsequent findings and must be raised at the earliest opportunity, preferably through a writ of certiorari seeking quashal of the FIR, charge‑sheet and conviction on the ground of lack of sanction.

Question: In what ways can the accused challenge the evidential basis of the forgery allegation while simultaneously emphasizing the procedural defect, and how should these arguments be structured in a High Court petition?

Answer: The accused should adopt a dual‑track approach that intertwines evidential challenges with the procedural defence. First, the petition must set out the factual matrix: the thumb‑impression recorded in the cash‑book, the fictitious contractor name, and the absence of any money trail to a real contractor. To contest the forgery claim, the defence can introduce expert forensic analysis of the thumb‑impression, showing that it is indistinguishable from a clerical imprint or that the impression could have been made by the accused in the ordinary course of his duties. Witness statements from other officers who routinely handle similar entries can corroborate that such impressions are routine and not indicative of fraudulent intent. Simultaneously, the petition must stress that even if the forensic evidence were adverse, the prosecution lacks jurisdiction because no sanction was obtained. The structure should begin with a concise statement of facts, followed by a legal argument that the offences are “directly concerned with” official functions, thereby invoking the sanction requirement. Next, the petition should present the evidential challenges, citing the forensic report, lack of a money trail, and the possibility of clerical error. Finally, it should conclude that the procedural defect eclipses any evidential dispute, rendering the proceedings an abuse of process. The High Court’s inherent powers under its constitutional jurisdiction and the criminal procedure code empower it to quash the case on this ground. Lawyers in Chandigarh High Court would recommend that the petition be drafted with clear headings within the narrative (without using actual heading tags) to guide the court through the intertwined arguments, ensuring that the procedural defect remains the dominant basis for relief.

Question: What are the risks to the accused’s liberty and property while the petition for quashing is pending, and how can bail or interim relief be secured in light of the procedural infirmity?

Answer: While the petition for quashing proceeds, the accused remains vulnerable to continued detention, attachment of property, and the stigma of a criminal conviction. Custodial risk is heightened because the trial court’s conviction may have already been recorded, and the accused could be serving a sentence or awaiting appeal. To mitigate these risks, the defence should file an application for bail on the ground that the prosecution is legally infirm due to the lack of sanction, which makes the detention unlawful. The application must highlight that the procedural defect is jurisdictional, rendering the conviction void ab initio, and therefore the accused is entitled to immediate release. Additionally, the defence can seek interim relief under the writ jurisdiction of the High Court, asking for a stay on the execution of any sentence, confiscation of assets, or issuance of a direction to the investigating agency to release seized documents. The petition should attach a copy of the informal note and the commissioner’s clarification to demonstrate the absence of sanction, reinforcing the argument that continued custody contravenes constitutional liberty guarantees. A lawyer in Punjab and Haryana High Court would advise that the bail application reference the inherent power of the court to prevent abuse of process and that the High Court can grant a direction for immediate release pending the final decision on the quashal petition. Prompt filing of the bail application, preferably together with the writ petition, can streamline the process and reduce the period of deprivation of liberty. The defence should also request that any attached property be released on a temporary basis, citing the principle that property cannot be confiscated without a valid conviction, which is absent due to the procedural defect.

Question: What specific documents and affidavits should be compiled to support a writ of certiorari seeking quashal of the FIR, charge‑sheet and conviction, and how should they be organized to satisfy the High Court’s evidentiary standards?

Answer: The petition must be anchored by a comprehensive documentary record that establishes both the factual background and the procedural lapse. Essential documents include the original FIR, the charge‑sheet, the judgment of conviction, and the certified copy of the informal note that was allegedly a sanction. The defence should also attach the subsequent communication from the municipal commissioner labeling the note as a clerical mistake, as well as any internal memos or orders that confirm no formal sanction was ever issued. Affidavits from the commissioner, the senior officer who drafted the note, and any other officials involved in the sanction process are crucial to corroborate the claim of procedural defect. A forensic expert’s affidavit regarding the thumb‑impression can be included to bolster the evidential challenge, though the primary focus remains on the sanction issue. All documents should be indexed chronologically, with a brief explanatory note preceding each attachment to indicate its relevance. The petition should also contain a sworn statement by the accused summarizing the sequence of events, his role, and the absence of sanction, thereby providing a personal narrative that ties the documentary evidence together. Lawyers in Chandigarh High Court would recommend that each affidavit be notarized and that the petition explicitly reference the constitutional and statutory provisions that empower the High Court to intervene when a criminal proceeding is void for lack of sanction. The petition should conclude with a prayer for certiorari, mandamus, and any ancillary relief, such as release from custody and restoration of property, ensuring that the High Court’s evidentiary standards for a writ are fully satisfied.

Question: If the High Court dismisses the quashal petition, what further procedural remedies are available to the accused, and how should the defence strategize a revision or review application to preserve the sanction argument?

Answer: Should the High Court reject the writ, the defence must be prepared to invoke the appellate hierarchy and the inherent powers of the court to correct jurisdictional errors. The first step is to file a revision petition before the same High Court, emphasizing that the dismissal overlooks a fundamental procedural defect that renders the entire proceeding void. The revision must meticulously cite the earlier petition, the lack of a formal sanction, and the legal principle that jurisdictional defects cannot be cured by subsequent findings. If the revision is also dismissed, the defence can approach the Supreme Court through a special leave petition, arguing that the High Court’s decision contravenes constitutional guarantees of liberty and the established jurisprudence on sanction requirements for public servants. Throughout this process, the defence should maintain the evidential challenges as a backup, but the core argument must remain the absence of sanction. A lawyer in Punjab and Haryana High Court would advise that each subsequent filing be accompanied by fresh affidavits reaffirming the procedural defect, perhaps including a declaration from a senior administrative officer confirming that no sanction was ever issued. The defence should also seek interim relief at each stage, requesting a stay on the execution of the conviction pending final determination, to prevent irreversible prejudice. Strategic timing is crucial; the revision or review should be filed promptly after the dismissal to avoid waiver of rights. By preserving the sanction argument across all levels of judicial scrutiny, the defence maximizes the chance of overturning the conviction and securing the accused’s release.