1. The accused in Crime No. 841 of 2013 of Bekal Police Station which has been registered for the offences under Sections 419, 465, 468 and 471 IPC and Section 12(1)(b) of the Passports Act prays that the proceedings in the crime may be quashed on the ground that the case was registered and is being investigated without previous sanction of the Central Government. The facts of the case are not relevant for the present purpose.

2. Section 15 of the Passports Act runs as follows :

No prosecution shall be instituted against any person in respect of any offence under this Act without the previous sanction of the Central Government or such officer or authority as may be authorised by that Government by order in writing in this behalf.

3. Before the registration of the case sanction of the Central government was not obtained. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that with the registration of the case the prosecution was instituted and so the proceedings are invalid. The question is whether sanction contemplated by Section 15 of the Passports Act is necessary before registration of case.

4. In S.A. Venkataraman Vs. Union of India and another (AIR 1954 SC 375) the Supreme Court has observed that the words 'prosecution' and 'punishment' have no fixed connotation and they are susceptible of both a wider and a narrow meaning.

5. Reliance is placed on the decision of this court in Shymesh v. State of Kerala (2014 KHC 3684) in support of the argument that previous sanction is necessary even for registration of case. In that case a learned single judge of this court held that unless sanction of the Central Government is obtained before registration of the case, the proceedings are illegal. But the court did not examine when is a prosecution said to be instituted in a criminal case.

6. The decision of the Supreme Court in Kamalapati Trivedi v. The State of West Bengal (AIR 1979 SC 777) is another decision relied on by Sri. Ravi Sankar, the learned counsel for the petitioner. The question that arose for consideration before the apex court was with regard to the meaning of the phrase 'in relation to any proceeding' used in Section 195(1)(b) Cr.P.C. This decision is not applicable to the facts of the case. Every proceedings in a court may not be the result of institution of a prosecution. A proceedings may arise in a court even before institution of prosecution.

7. The decision of the Supreme Court in Ram Kumar v. State of Haryana (AIR 1987 SC 735) also was brought to my notice by the learned counsel. What was considered by the apex court in that decision is the differences between the provisions contained in Sections 132 and 197 Cr.P.C. The court did not examine the question when is a prosecution said to be instituted in a criminal case.

8. Strong reliance is placed on the two bench decision of the Supreme Court in State, CBI v. Sashi Balasubramanian and Another (2006) 13 SCC 252) in support of the argument that prosecution includes registration of a case. The Supreme Court observed: “The term prosecution would include institution or commencement of a criminal proceedings. It may include also an enquiry or investigation. The terms prosecution and cognizance are not interchangeable. They carry different meanings. Different statutes provide for grant of sanction at different stages.” The court further observed: “The term 'prosecution has been instituted' would not mean when charge sheet has been filed and cognizance has been taken. It must be given its ordinary meaning.” It may be noticed that the term institution of prosecution is different in ordinary parlance and legal parlance. Its meaning may be different in different cases. In fact, in the above decision the Supreme Court has observed that the meaning of the word prosecution may vary from case to case. The case involved interpretation and / or application of the Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme 1998 framed under the Finance Act, 1998. It appears that certain persons were granted exemption