Srinagar, Nov 4: The High Court of Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh has dismissed a petition filed by an Accounts Assistant seeking dismissal of a corruption charge-sheet over discrepancies in the dates appearing on his prosecution sanction order.

Justice Sanjay Parihar, while deciding CRM(M) No. 918/2026 on October 31, held that a discrepancy in dates, without additional material establishing substantive illegality, could not automatically invalidate the sanction or terminate criminal proceedings.
The petitioner, Nisar Ahmad Rather, was booked in FIR No. 01/2023 registered by the Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB), Srinagar, under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The charge-sheet was filed before the trial court on May 29, 2024.
The challenge centred on Government Order No. 12-JK-GAD(Vig) of 2024, dated April 29, 2024, granting sanction for his prosecution. While the order carried the date April 29, the signatures of the sanctioning authority bore September 24, 2024.
Rather argued that the discrepancy rendered the sanction invalid, as prior sanction under Section 19 of the Act was mandatory for prosecuting a public servant. His plea seeking dismissal of the charge-sheet was rejected by the trial court, prompting him to approach the High Court.
His counsel, Junaid Rashid, argued that the trial court could not presume the September date to be a clerical error without supporting material. During the hearing, however, he conceded that the sanction was not being challenged on the ground of non-application of mind.
The prosecution alleges that Rather, then posted as an Accounts Assistant in the Directorate of Accounts and Treasuries, Kashmir, demanded illegal gratification from employees of Children's Hospital, Bemina, for settling an issue concerning payment of two-and-a-half days' allowance.
According to the ACB, the amount allegedly increased from Rs 3,000 to Rs 18,000. A trap was subsequently laid, and Rather was allegedly caught red-handed while demanding and accepting Rs 18,000 in the presence of independent witnesses.
The High Court observed that a valid sanction is an important statutory safeguard against frivolous prosecution, and an accused has the right to challenge its legality. However, every irregularity in a sanction order does not necessarily warrant termination of criminal proceedings.
Justice Parihar noted that the petitioner had not produced independent material establishing that the sanction was actually granted after the charge-sheet was filed or that it violated Section 19 of the Act.
At the same time, the court observed that the trial court could not conclusively presume that the discrepancy was clerical merely because the charge-sheet had been filed on May 29, 2024.
It held that the date discrepancy, by itself, could not establish that the sanction was invalid or render the charge-sheet non est in law.
The court clarified that Rather remained free to challenge the sanction before the trial court at the appropriate stage, including through cross-examination of the sanctioning authority or other relevant witnesses.
Referring to the Supreme Court judgment in Mohd. Iqbal Ahmad v. State of Andhra Pradesh, the High Court said the ruling affirmed the requirement of valid sanction but did not support automatic dismissal of a charge-sheet over a discrepancy of this nature.
Leaving the question of sanction validity open for examination by the trial court, Justice Parihar dismissed the petition as devoid of merit.