Questions and answers on law (Part 85)

Q :- explain me procedure  of raid under  prevention of corruption  Act? 

Ans:-  A “raid” under the Prevention of Corruption Act is usually a trap/raid for bribe (Sections 7/8/12 PC Act) conducted by ACB/CBI, and the procedure is essentially the standard trap protocol plus statutory requirements on investigation and sanction.

Trap/Raid procedure (stepwise)

1. Complaint & verification

• Written complaint by complainant; agency verifies demand (often by discreet verification/voice recording as per local SOP).

2. Registration & authority

• Register FIR/PE as per practice.

• Ensure investigation is by an authorised officer of requisite rank under Section 17 PC Act.​

3. Section 17A check (important after 2018)

• If allegation relates to a recommendation/decision taken in discharge of official functions, prior approval under Section 17A may be required before enquiry/investigation, except in “trap/red‑handed” situations (typical bribe demand/acceptance traps).

4. Pre‑trap panchanama / briefing

• Call 2 independent panch witnesses.

• Demonstrate phenolphthalein powder + sodium carbonate reaction.

• Note currency numbers; apply powder; hand over tainted money to complainant with instructions not to touch except to pass on demand.

• Fix signal for acceptance; plan positioning of raiding party.

5. Trap/raid (acceptance)

• Complainant meets accused; on demand and acceptance, gives signal.

• Raiding team immediately enters, discloses identity, recovers tainted notes (from hand/pocket/drawer as per facts).

6. Post‑trap proceedings

• Hand wash/pocket wash in sodium carbonate; seal bottles; prepare post‑trap panchanama.

• Seize bribe amount and relevant documents; draw site plan; record statements; arrest if required.

7. Search & seizure (if needed)

• Search office/house for connected documents/assets under CrPC search provisions; follow sealing, inventory and chain of custody.

8. Sanction for prosecution

• For cognizance against public servant, obtain previous sanction under Section 19 PC Act before filing charge‑sheet for those offences requiring sanction.​

30‑second interview answer

“Sir/Madam, a PC Act raid is typically a trap: complaint is verified, case registered, and an authorised IO under s.17 conducts a pre‑trap panchanama with independent panchas, phenolphthalein demonstration, noting currency numbers and fixing a signal. On demand and acceptance, the raiding team recovers tainted money, conducts hand/pocket wash, seals samples, prepares post‑trap panchanama, and records statements/seizures maintaining chain of custody. Investigation then proceeds; where applicable, s.17A approval is checked, and s.19 sanction is obtained before court takes cognizance.”

Q 2:- Whether Sanction for all offences  under corruption  act is required , for which offences  sanction is not required? How sanction for prosecution in proved in cases under prevention of corruption act?

1) Is sanction required for all PC Act offences?

No. Sanction under Section 19 PC Act is required only when the accused is a “public servant” and the court is taking cognizance of specified PC Act offences (bribery/criminal misconduct etc.) and the person is still covered as a public servant at the relevant time.

2) For which situations/offences sanction is not required?

Sanction under Section 19 PC Act is generally not required in these situations:

• Accused is not a public servant (e.g., private bribe giver/abettor in some fact patterns), because Section 19 is a protection for prosecution “of a public servant”.

• Where the accused public servant has ceased to hold office and is no longer removable by the authority contemplated (many courts treat S.19 as tied to “public servant” status at cognizance; you should answer cautiously and add “depends on status at cognizance”).

• Sanction defects do not automatically vitiate the case: under the saving clauses/provisos of Section 19, proceedings are not set aside unless failure of justice is shown (so “absence/irregularity” has a limited curative approach, depending on stage).

Important distinction (often asked as a trap):

• Section 17A PC Act is not “sanction for prosecution”; it is prior approval for enquiry/investigation in certain categories of official decision‑making. It is different from Section 19  of PC Act.

3) How is sanction “proved” in a PC Act trial?

In evidence, prosecution typically proves sanction like this:

1. Produce the original sanction order (or certified copy, if permissible).

2. Examine the sanctioning authority (or competent witness from that office) to prove:

   • the authority was competent to remove/appoint the accused (competence/jurisdiction), and

   • the authority applied its mind: it considered relevant material (FIR, statements, trap panchanama, recovery memos, draft charge‑sheet, and also any material that may favour accused).

3. Link documents: show the exact record forwarded to sanctioning authority, often by an index/forwarding letter and file notings, to demonstrate “application of mind.”

Interview line: “Sanction is a solemn act; prosecution must prove competence and application of mind by producing the sanction order and examining the sanctioning authority with the material placed before it.”

30–40 second Judicial service answer (ready)

“Sir/Madam, sanction is not required for every offence under PC Act. Section 19 requires prior sanction before cognizance only when the accused is a public servant and the case relates to PC Act offences covered by Section 19. It is different from Section 17A, which concerns prior approval for enquiry/investigation in certain official decision cases. Sanction is proved by producing the sanction order and examining the competent sanctioning authority to show two things: competence to remove the public servant and application of mind to the full record—FIR, statements, trap/recovery memos, and relevant material.”

Print Page