Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
ANIRUDDHA BOSE, BELA M. TRIVEDI, JJ.
State of Karnataka Lokayukta Police – Appellant
Versus
S. Subbegowda – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 1598 of 2023
Decided On : 03-08-2023
(A) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 197 – Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 – Section 19 – Sanction for prosecution of public servant – Statute forbids taking of cognizance by Court against a public servant except with previous sanction of Government/authority competent to grant such sanction – Question with regard to validity of such sanction should be raised at the earliest stage of proceedings – Stages of proceedings at which accused could raise issue with regard to validity of sanction would be stage when Court takes cognizance of offence, stage when charge is to be framed by Court or at stage when trial is complete – In case sanction is found to be invalid, trial court can discharge accused and relegate parties to a stage where competent authority may grant fresh sanction for prosecution in accordance with law. (Para 10)
(B) Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 – Section 13(1) (e) read with Sections 13(2) and 19 – Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Sections 227, 465 and 482 – Acquisition of wealth disproportionate to known sources of income – Discharge of accused – Special Judge proceeded with trial on second application for discharge filed by respondent having not been pressed for by him – Special Judge, while dismissing third application filed by respondent seeking discharge after examination of 17 witnesses by prosecution, specifically held that sanction accorded by government which was a superior authority, was proper and valid – Such findings recorded by Special Judge could not have been and should not have been reversed or altered by High Court – Neither respondent had pleaded nor High Court opined whether any failure of justice had occasioned to respondent on account of error occurred in granting sanction by authority – Interlocutory application seeking discharge in midst of trial would also not be maintainable – Once cognizance was taken by Special Judge and charge was framed against accused, trial could neither have been stayed nor scuttled in midst of it – Impugned order passed by High Court set aside. (Paras 14, 15 and 16)
Facts of the case:
Appellant – State of Karnataka Lokayukta Police by way of instant appeal has assailed judgment and order dated 16.08.2018 passed by High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru in Criminal Petition No. 4463 of 2018 whereby High Court has allowed the said petition by discharging respondent (original petitioner-accused) from the offences charged under Section 13(1) (e) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 on the ground that sanction accorded to prosecute the respondent-accused by Government was illegal and without jurisdiction.
Findings of Court:
It will be open for the respondent to raise issue of validity of sanction if he desires to do so, in accordance with law at the final stage of arguments in trial. Special Judge is directed to proceed with trial from stage it had stopped, in accordance with the law and as expeditiously as possible.
Result : Appeal allowed.
JUDGMENT :
BELA M. TRIVEDI, J.
1. The appellant-State of Karnataka Lokayukta Police by way of instant appeal has assailed the judgment and order dated 16.08.2018 passed by the High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru in Criminal Petition No. 4463 of 2018 whereby the High Court has allowed the said petition by discharging the respondent (original petitioner-accused) from the offences charged under Section 13(1)(e) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act), on the ground that the sanction accorded to prosecute the respondent-accused by the Government was illegal and without jurisdiction.
2. The respondent was working as an Executive Engineer in the Karnataka Urban Water Supply and Drainage Board, Mandya Division, Mandya during the period 1983 to 2007. On the basis of the Source Report dated 17.12.2007 submitted by the then Deputy Superintendent of Police, Bengaluru Rural Division, Karnataka Lokayukta, Bengaluru, a case being Crime No. 22 of 2007 (later numbered as Crime No. 62 of 2008) came to be registered against the respondent for the offence under Section 13(1)(e) read with Section 13(2) of the said Act. It was alleged, inter-alia, that the respondent-accused during his tenure in the office as an Executive Engineer had amassed the wealth disproportionate to his known sources of income. On the completion of the investigation, the Investigating Officer had sent the papers to the State Government seeking sanction to prosecute the respondent as required in Section 19(1) of the said Act. The Government of Karnataka on the basis of the material placed before it, had accorded the requisite sanction by issuing the Government order dated 13.09.2010. Thereafter the charge-sheet came to be filed in the Court of Principal District and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru Rural District at Bengaluru wherein it was alleged that respondent had abused his position as a public servant, had indulged into corrupt practices and had amassed wealth disproportionate to his known sources of income. The said case was registered as Special Case No. 488 of 2011 before the said Court.
3. The respondent-accused filed an application under Section 227 read with 239 of Cr.P.C. on 12.10.2011, seeking his discharge from the case contending, inter-alia, that neither the contents of the Source Report nor the other documents constituted any offence as alleged, and that the sanction under Section 19(1) of the said Act was issued by the Government without any application of mind. The said application came to be dismissed by the trial court by passing a detailed order on 01.02.2013. Being aggrieved by the said order, the respondent preferred a Criminal Revision Petition being no. 287 of 2013 before the High Court. The said petition came to be disposed of by the High Court vide the order dated 05.07.2013 directing the trial court to consider the documents made available by the respondent during the investigation and produced by the prosecution with the charge-sheet, while framing the charge without being influenced by the order dated 01.12.2013.
4. It appears that in view of the said order passed by the High Court, the respondent-accused again filed an application under Sections 227 and 239 of Cr.P.C. before the trial court seeking his discharge from the case by contending, inter-alia, that the sanction order passed by the Government lacked application of mind and was given mechanically and that the Investigating Officer had suppressed the material produced by the respondent offering satisfactory explanations to the assets acquired, income derived and expenditure incurred by the respondent during period in question. Pertinently, the respondent did not press for the said application by submitting a memo on 02.12.2014 and stating therein that the Court may proceed to frame charge against him. The said memo reads as under:
“IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL DISTRICT AND
SESSIONS JUDGE BANGALORE RURAL AT BANGALORE
Spl. C.C. No.
(1) Question with regard to validity of such sanction should be raised at the earliest stage of proceedings.(2) Interlocutory application seeking discharge in midst of trial would not be maintainable....
The judgment established that the absence of sanction can be raised at the inception and at the threshold as it goes to the root of the matter. It also emphasized that the validity or illegality of t....
The validity of the sanction to prosecute under the Prevention of Corruption act, 1988 depends on the application of mind by the sanctioning authority and their full knowledge of the material facts o....
Any error, omission or irregularity in grant of sanction will not affect any finding, sentence or order passed by a competent Court unless in opinion of court a failure of justice has been occasioned....
Sanction for prosecution – Substantial principle of requiring sanction for prosecution and at the same time principle in not negating sentence or order of a court of competent jurisdiction are both i....
Point of law : Section 19(3) of the PC Act indicates that it deals with three situations: (i) Sub-Clause (a) deals a situation where a final judgment and sentence has been delivered by the Special Ju....
The competent authority to grant sanction for prosecution of an IAS officer is the Central Government under the Prevention of Corruption Act.
The requirement of prior sanction under the Prevention of Corruption Act is essential for the prosecution of public servants, and failure to obtain it renders proceedings void unless it results in a ....
The validity of prosecution sanction must be evaluated at trial; minor irregularities do not nullify proceedings without evident failure of justice.
The validity of a sanction under the Prevention of Corruption Act can be challenged at any stage of proceedings, and a fresh sanction does not violate the principle against double jeopardy if the pre....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
