IMPORTANT POINT
The court emphasized the authority of the Special Judge to take cognizance without directing reinvestigation and the validity of the direction for sanction under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

JUDGMENT

Amit Bansal, J. (Oral)

CRL.M.A. 25505/2023 (Exemption)

1. Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

2. The application stands disposed of.

CRL.M.C. 6827/2023

3. The present petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) impugning the following orders passed by the learned Special Judge:

i. Order dated 1st July, 2022, whereby the closure report was rejected and the investigation officer (IO) was directed to make a request to the concerned sanctioning authority for grant of sanction against the petitioner in terms of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (PC Act).

ii. Order dated 13th December, 2022, whereby cognizance of offences under Sections 7/13(1)(d) of the PC Act and Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1980 (IPC) was taken against the petitioner.

iii. Order dated 17th August, 2023, whereby charges have been framed against the petitioner.

4. Counsel for the petitioner challenges the aforesaid orders on the following grounds:

i. The Special Judge, not having accepted the closure report, should have directed reinvestigation in the matter. Reliance in this regard is placed on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Vasanti Dubey v. State of Madhya Pradesh, (2012) 2 SCC 731.

ii. The Special Judge could not have directed the IO to seek sanction to prosecute the petitioner from the concerned sanctioning authority under the PC Act. Reliance in this regard is placed on Mansukhlal Vithaldas Chauhan v. State of Gujarat, (1997) 7SCC 622.

iii. The order framing charges against the petitioner is based on hearsay evidence of the two complainants, namely Krishna Devi and Vandana Sharma, who have since passed away.

5. Per contra, learned APP submits that all the aforesaid orders passed by the learned Special Judge are in accordance with law and there is no infirmity in the said orders.

6. In the judgment of the Supreme Court in Vasanti Dubey (supra), the learned Special Judge having not accepted the closure report had directed reinvestigation of the case, whereas in the present case, reinvestigation has not been directed by the Special Judge. In fact, in the said judgment, while placing reliance on another judgment of the Supreme Court in Bains v. State 1980 (4) SCC 631, it has been specifically stated that court can take cognizance without directing reinvestigation. The relevant observations of which are set out below:

"...

1. When a Magistrate receives a complaint, he may, instead of taking cognizance at once under Section 190(1)(a) direct a police investigation under Section 156(3) ante;

2. Where, after completion of the investigation, the police sends an adverse report under Section 173(1), the Magistrate may take any of the following steps:

(i) If he agrees with police report, and finds that there is no sufficient ground for proceeding further, he may drop the proceeding and dismiss the complaint.

(ii) He may not agree with the police report and may take cognizance of the offence on the basis of the original complaint, under Section 190(1)(a) and proceed to examine the complainant under Section 200.

(iii) Even if he disagrees with the police report, he may either take cognizance at once upon the complaint, direct an enquiry under Section 202 and after such enquiry take action under Section 203. However, when the police submits a final report or closure report in regard to a case which has been lodged by the informant or complainant, the Magistrate cannot direct the police to straightaway submit the charge-sheet as was the view expressed in Abhinandan Jha (supra) which was relied upon in Ram Naresh Prasad (supra)."

7. A perusal of the aforesaid findings shows that if the magistrate does not agree with the police report, he can still take cognizance of an offence. In the present case, since there was sufficient material to proceed against the accused, the Special Judge has correctly decided to take cognizance and proceed against the accused. The relevant observations in the impugned order dated 1st July, 2022 a