Back
Judges : G.B.PATTANAIK,BRIJESH KUMAR
Mohandas - Appellant
Versus
State of Kerala - Respondent
Case No : S.L.P. No. 6598, 6599 of 2001
Decided On : 02/11/2002
Advocates Appeared :
P.N. Misra; Romy Chacko; For Petitioner K.R. Sasiprabhu; For Respondent
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - Lack of Sanction for Prosecution - Quashing of Proceedings
Fact of the Case:
The appellant was being prosecuted under the provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The High Court refused to entertain the plea of lack of sanction for prosecution by the Competent Authority on the ground that it would tantamount to review of the earlier order and the Court does not possess the power to review the earlier order.
Finding of the Court:
The Court found that the sanction to prosecute was given by an Authority who did not have the jurisdiction to grant such sanction prior to a specific date. As a result, there was non-compliance of Section 19 of the Act, which led the Court to quash the proceedings.
Issues: The main issue was the lack of jurisdiction of the Authority granting the sanction for prosecution under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court's decision was influenced by the non-compliance of Section 19 of the Act, which requires the previous sanction of the Authority competent to remove the person concerned for prosecuting a public servant under specific sections of the Act.
Final Decision: The Court quashed the proceedings due to the lack of jurisdiction of the Authority granting the sanction for prosecution.
1. Leave granted.
The appellant is being prosecuted under the provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short "the Act"). The High Court refused to entertain the plea of lack of sanction for prosecution by the Competent Authority on the ground that it would tantamount to review of the earlier order and the Court does not possess the power to review the earlier order.
Under S.19 of the Act no Court can take cognizance of an offence punishable under S.7,10,11,13 and 15 alleged to have been committed by a public servant, except with the previous sanction of the Authority competent to remove the person concerned. In the case in hand, the Secretary (Vigilance) appears to have accorded sanction to prosecute. The appellant's case is that the Secretary (Vigilance) was authorised to grant sanction only on 23.4.1994 and there is no order of the State Government making the Secretary (Vigilance) competent to accord sanction prior to the said date. The learned counsel appearing for the State is not in a position to refute the aforesaid contention and, in fact, is not able to produce any document which confers power on the Secretary (Vigilance) to accord sanction prior to 23.4.1994. The sanction in the present case being prior to the aforesaid date, the date on which the sanction appears to have been given, the concerned Authority had no jurisdiction and, therefore, there is an embargo on the court's power to take cognizance for non-compliance of S.19 of the Act. We accordingly quash the proceeding.
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
