Point of Law: Magistrate has to carefully scrutinise evidence brought on record and may even himself put questions to complainant and his witnesses to elicit answers to find out truthfulness of allegations.

JUDGMENT :

Achintya Malla Bujor Barua, J.

Heard Mr. B. Bhagawati, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. A. Kalita, learned Additional Advocate General for the State of Mizoram.

2. The petitioner Sh. Lalrammawia was subjected to an investigation in ACB P.S. Case No.4/2017 under Sections 409, 471, 477A of the Indian Penal Code (in short IPC) read with Section 13(1)(c)(d) and Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (in short P.C. Act). The investigation resulted in the final report by the investigation dated 13.03.2019. The final report of 13.03.2019 was considered by the learned Court of Special Judge, Mizoram at Aizawl, in SR(PCA) No.3/2019 wherein by an order dated 03.05.2019, the Special Court was of the view that there was sufficient ground to proceed against the petitioner and another co-accused, namely, Pu H. Lalengmawia. The petitioner Sh. Lalrammawia was the Superintending Engineer in the PHE Department in the Champhai Circle whereas the other accused person Pu H. Lalengmawia was the Deputy Commissioner of Champhai district.

3. Being aggrieved by the order dated 03.05.2019 of the Special Judge, Pu H. Lalengmawia, the Deputy Commissioner instituted Crl.Rev.P. No.4/2019 before the Aizawl Bench of the Gauhati High Court, wherein one of the ground taken was that sanction under Section 19 of the P.C. Act was not obtained and as such the order taking cognizance by reversing the final report was unacceptable in law. The petitioner Sh. Lalrammawia on similar terms instituted WP(Crl.) No.2/2019 before the Aizawl Bench of the Gauhati High Court. Crl.Rev.P. No.4/2019 was given a final consideration by the judgment dated 17.09.2019, wherein by following the proposition laid down in L.Narayana Swamy v. State of Karnataka & Ors. reported in (2016) 9 SCC 598, a conclusion was arrived at paragraph 13 of the judgment that as the petitioner therein was posted as Deputy Commissioner, Champhai, when the alleged offence of misappropriation had taken place and since then as the said petitioner has been transferred and presently posted as Secretary to the Government of Mizoram in the Department of Sports and Youth Services and also Health and Family Welfare, therefore, the learned Special Judge could not have issued the process against the petitioner without there being a prosecution sanction. By arriving at such conclusion, the order dated 03.05.2019 of the learned Special Judge in respect of Pu H. Lalengmawia was set aside.

4. The Crl.Rev.P. No.4/2019 was against the order dated 03.05.2019 of the Special Judge, P.C. Act, in ACB P.S. Case No.4/2017. By the order of 03.05.2019 of the Special Judge in SR(PCA) No.3/2019 in ACB P.S. Case No.4/2017, cognizance had been taken both in respect of the petitioner in Crl.Rev.P. No.4/2019 as well as the petitioner in the present WP(Crl.) No.2/2019. When WP(Crl.) No.2/2019 before the Aizawl Bench was taken up, the learned Single Judge by the order dated 31.08.2021 had disagreed with the legal propositions in the judgment dated 17.09.2019 in Crl.Rev.P. No.4/2019 and accordingly, required the legal propositions to be decided by a Larger Bench. Upon being referred WP(Crl.) No.2/2019 was re-registered as WP(Crl.) No.22/2021 before the Principal Seat.

5. Accordingly, by raising certain questions for reference had referred the matter to be considered by a Larger Bench as to whether the view taken by the learned Single Judge in Crl.Rev.P. No.4/2019 is acceptable in law. In the circumstance, the WP(Crl.) No.22/2021 is before us for answering the reference as well as considering the WP(Crl.) No.2/2019 on its own merit.

6. On the question referred before the Larger Bench as to whether the view taken by the learned Single Judge in the order dated 17.09.2019 in Crl.Rev.P. No.4/2019 is acceptable in law, we noticed that the learned Single Judge therein had relied upon paragraph 21 of the judgment rendered by the Supreme Court in L.Narayana Swamy (supra) and accordingly, in paragraph 13 arrived at