Karnataka HC Upholds Corruption Proceedings Against Retired BBMP Engineer; Rejects Sanction Objection

Aadrikaa Legal Services (ALS)- Law I Litigation I Arbitration

Date: 22.09.2026

Karnataka HC Upholds Corruption Proceedings Against Retired BBMP Engineer; Rejects Sanction Objection

The Karnataka High Court has held that the 2018 amendment to Section 19(1) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, which extended the requirement of prior sanction to former public servants, cannot be invoked to reopen proceedings where the court had already taken cognizance of the alleged corruption offences before the amendment came into force on 26 July 2018.

Justice H.P. Sandesh dismissed three criminal revision petitions filed by retired BBMP Executive Engineer B.G. Prakash Kumar, thereby allowing the criminal proceedings against him under Sections 13(1)(c) and 13(1)(d), read with Section 13(2), of the Prevention of Corruption Act to continue.

Case Arose From Alleged Irregularities in BBMP Development Works

• The prosecution case concerned alleged irregularities in developmental works undertaken by the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike (BBMP).
• B.G. Prakash Kumar had served as an Executive Engineer, Malleshwaram Division, BBMP, and supervised road improvement and asphalting works.
• Following allegations concerning irregularities in execution of developmental works, the BBMP Commissioner directed the Technical Investigation Cell to conduct an inquiry. A complaint was thereafter lodged by the Additional Commissioner, BBMP, leading to registration of Crime No. 4/2011 for offences under the IPC and Prevention of Corruption Act.
• Prakash Kumar retired from service on attaining superannuation on 30 July 2017. The investigating agency subsequently filed charge sheets before the competent court in 2018.

Cognizance Was Taken Before PC Act Amendment

• The dates on which cognizance was taken ultimately became crucial to the High Court’s decision.
• The Special Court took cognizance on 23 May 2018 in Special C.C. Nos. 339/2018 and 338/2018 and on 16 February 2018 in Special C.C. No. 107/2018.
• Thus, in all three cases, cognizance had already been taken before 26 July 2018, when the Prevention of Corruption (Amendment) Act, 2018 came into force.

Trial Court Initially Discharged Retired Executive Engineer

• Prakash Kumar moved applications under Section 227 CrPC seeking discharge from both IPC and Prevention of Corruption Act offences.
• The Trial Court initially discharged him and closed the proceedings by an order dated 20 September 2023, holding the prosecution case unsustainable in law.
• However, the Karnataka High Court subsequently, by an order dated 22 March 2025, set aside that discharge order and remanded the matter to the Trial Court for fresh consideration.
• After reconsideration, the Trial Court passed a fresh order on 24 February 2026.
• This time, it discharged Prakash Kumar from the IPC offences under Sections 120B, 409, 465, 468 and 477A, but directed continuation of proceedings for offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act.
• The retired officer therefore approached the High Court through the present revision petitions challenging the partial rejection of his discharge applications.

Petitioner: Prior Sanction Mandatory Even for Retired Public Servant

• The petitioner’s principal argument centred on the amendment made to Section 19(1) of the Prevention of Corruption Act with effect from 26 July 2018.
• The amended provision requires previous sanction before a court takes cognizance of specified corruption offences allegedly committed by a public servant and extends the statutory language to a person who “was at the time of commission of the alleged offence” employed in connection with the affairs of the Union or State, as applicable.
• Counsel for Prakash Kumar argued that the amended provision protected retired officials as well and that sanction constituted a condition precedent for valid cognizance.
• It was argued that after the earlier discharge order was set aside and the proceedings restored, the Trial Court was required to reconsider the matter afresh. According to the petitioner, continuation of the PC Act proceedings without a valid sanction under Section 19(1) was therefore impermissible.

Earlier Cognizance Lost Effect After Discharge, Petitioner Argued

• The petitioner further contended that once he had been discharged in 2023, the cognizance originally taken in 2018 had lost its legal efficacy.
• Accordingly, after remand and restoration of proceedings, it was argued that the prosecution could not rely upon the original cognizance and continue without obtaining the sanction contemplated under the amended Section 19(1).
• The petitioner also argued that because he was in service at the time of the alleged offences, the sanction requirement should relate back to the date of the alleged crime rather than merely the date on which cognizance was taken.

State: Amendment Came After Cognizance Had Already Been Taken

• The State opposed the petitions and argued that the 2018 amendment came into effect only on 26 July 2018, whereas Prakash Kumar had already retired in 2017 and cognizance had been taken before the amendment.
• The Additional State Public Prosecutor relied, among other authorities, upon a Supreme Court decision concerning B.T. Ramesh, contending that prior sanction under the then-existing Section 19 was required only in relation to public servants who were in service when cognizance was taken and not those who had already retired.

Karnataka HC: Amended Section 19 Protects Retired Public Servants Prospectively

• The High Court acknowledged that after the 2018 amendment, prior sanction is required even in respect of former public servants in cases to which the amended provision applies.
• The Court observed that subsequent to the amendment coming into force on 26 July 2018, sanction is a condition precedent for valid cognizance of the covered PC Act offences even in relation to retired public servants.
• However, that proposition did not resolve Prakash Kumar’s case because the decisive question was whether the amended requirement could affect cognizance already taken before 26 July 2018.

Cognizance Dates Became Decisive

• The High Court found that the criminal cases had been registered, investigated and charge-sheeted before the amendment and, crucially, cognizance had also been taken before the amendment came into force.
• The Court examined the cognizance orders and noted that the Special Court had considered the charge-sheet materials and taken cognizance of both IPC and PC Act offences before issuing summons to the accused.
• Accordingly, Justice Sandesh held that the subsequent amendment “will not come to the aid of the petitioner”, because cognizance had already been taken before 26 July 2018.

What Does “Taking Cognizance” Mean?

• The petitioner relied upon the Supreme Court judgment in S.K. Sinha, Chief Enforcement Officer v. Videocon International Ltd. & Others, (2008) 2 SCC 492.
• The High Court noted the principle that “cognizance” means taking judicial notice of an offence and occurs when the Court or Magistrate applies its mind to the suspected commission of the offence.
• At the cognizance stage, the court examines whether there is sufficient ground for proceeding with the matter, rather than whether sufficient material exists for conviction.

2018 PC Act Amendment Does Not Apply Retrospectively to Completed Cognizance

• The High Court referred extensively to precedent dealing with the temporal application of the 2018 amendments.
• It discussed Dr. Pilli Sambasiva Rao v. State of Telangana, 2022 SCC OnLine TS 3401, which in turn considered the Supreme Court’s decision in State of Telangana v. Managipet, (2019) 19 SCC 87.
• The judgment noted the principle that the 2018 amendment cannot retrospectively govern offences and proceedings in the manner urged where the relevant criminal process had already commenced under the pre-amendment law.
• The Court reproduced the reasoning from Managipet that offences committed before the 2018 amendment have to be examined in light of the statutory provisions as they existed before the amendment.

Delhi High Court’s 2026 Ruling Relied Upon

• Significantly, the Karnataka High Court also relied upon a recent Delhi High Court judgment dated 6 August 2026 in Criminal Reference No. 1/2019.
• The Delhi High Court had held that the amended Section 19(1) introduced a new obligation to obtain sanction in respect of former public servants. However, where cognizance had already been taken before 26 July 2018, such cognizance would not be reopened merely because of the subsequent amendment.
• Conversely, where cognizance had not yet been taken as of 26 July 2018, the amended protection could apply even though the alleged offence related to an earlier period.
• The Karnataka High Court reproduced the crucial distinction: where cognizance already stood taken before 26 July 2018, “there would be no fresh requirement of prior sanction in such cases.”

Benefit of Amended Section 19 Depends on Whether Cognizance Was Already Taken

• After considering the authorities, the Karnataka High Court crystallised the applicable position.
• It held that the benefit of the amended Section 19(1) is available where the Court had not already taken cognizance before the amendment became operative.
• In Prakash Kumar’s cases, however, the FIRs had been registered, investigations completed, charge sheets filed and cognizance taken before the amendment.
• The amended sanction requirement therefore could not invalidate or reopen the cognizance already taken.

Trial Court Correctly Continued PC Act Proceedings

• The High Court found no error in the Trial Court’s order dated 24 February 2026.
• The Trial Court had discharged Prakash Kumar from the IPC offences but rejected his discharge plea concerning the PC Act offences. According to the High Court, the Trial Court correctly applied the governing principles because the amended Section 19 could not benefit the petitioner after cognizance had already been taken under the pre-amendment regime.
• Accordingly, all three criminal revision petitions were dismissed.

Key Takeaway

The decision draws an important temporal line at 26 July 2018 for the amended sanction protection under Section 19(1) of the Prevention of Corruption Act.

The Karnataka High Court’s reasoning indicates that while the amended provision extends sanction protection to former public servants where applicable, it does not require courts to reopen cognizance already validly taken before the amendment came into force.

Thus, a retired public servant cannot secure discharge merely by invoking the amended Section 19(1) where cognizance of the PC Act offences had already been taken before 26 July 2018. In the present case, the High Court consequently upheld continuation of the corruption proceedings against B.G. Prakash Kumar while leaving the allegations to be determined at trial.

Aadrikaa Legal Services is a trusted legal and regulatory support partner providing end-to-end legal solutions to law firms, corporate organizations, and businesses across India. We specialize in paralegal services, litigation support, tax and regulatory matters, delivering reliable, efficient, and result-oriented legal assistance.

Our services include comprehensive paralegal support, drafting and documentation, legal research, case management, litigation handling, and representation support across various judicial and quasi-judicial forums. We also assist in direct and indirect tax matters, customs, GST, corporate regulatory compliance, and legal advisory.

Source: Karnataka High Court

Disclaimer

Handy Download:

Write to us at office@aadrikaalaw.com

Tel: +91-11-4999 2707

www.aadrikaalaw.com