IMPORTANT POINT
Where for any reason whatsoever any doubt arises as to whether the previous sanction, as required under sub-section (1) should be given by the Central Government or the State Government or any authority, such sanction shall be given by that Government or authority which could have been competent to remove the public servant from his office at the time when the offence was alleged to have been committed

ORDER :

The revision petitioner is the accused in the case C.C.No.136/2016 pending in the Court of the Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge, Thalassery.

2. The offences alleged against the petitioner are under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short 'the Act').

3. The prosecution case is as follows: The petitioner was the Sub Registrar in the Sub Registrar's Office, Kannur. On 11.10.2011 and 08.11.2011, he demanded an amount of Rs.1,000/-as bribe from one Shaji for registration of a gift deed. On 09.11.2011, at 11:25 hours, he demanded and accepted an amount of Rs.1,000/-as bribe from Shaji at the Sub Registrar's Office, Kannur as a motive or reward for doing his official act and thereby he abused his position as a public servant and committed misconduct.

4. After completing the investigation of the case, final report against the petitioner was filed in the Special Court. The Special Court took cognizance of the offences against the petitioner and on 21.05.2016, framed charge against him for the offences mentioned earlier.

5. After framing the charge against him by the trial court, the petitioner filed an application for discharge under Section 239 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 'the Code') in the trial court.

6. As per the order dated 16.10.2019, the trial court dismissed the application for discharge filed by the petitioner. Aggrieved by that order, the petitioner has filed this revision petition.

7. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and also the learned Public Prosecutor.

8. The petitioner has raised several grounds in the revision petition to challenge the order of the trial court dismissing the application for discharge. But, at the time of hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner has raised only one contention, that is, with regard to the incompetency of the authority who accorded sanction for prosecution.

9. Learned counsel for the petitioner has pointed out that the Inspector General of Registration has accorded sanction for prosecution against the petitioner. According to the learned counsel, the authority competent to grant sanction for prosecution against the petitioner is the Commissioner and Secretary of the Vigilance Department and not the Inspector General of Registration. It is contended that sanction for prosecution against the petitioner is granted by an authority which is not competent to grant it. Learned counsel for the petitioner has, therefore, contended that cognizance of the offences taken by the trial court with the previous sanction of an authority, which is incompetent to grant it, is bad in law and a nullity and that the petitioner is entitled to be discharged.

10. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor has contended that the authority competent to remove the petitioner from his office is the Inspector General of Registration and therefore, the sanction for prosecution granted against the petitioner is in accordance with the provision contained under Section 19(c) of the Act.

11. The petitioner was in service as a Sub Registrar in the Registration Department at the time of commission of the offences alleged against him. There is no dispute with regard to the fact that he was then a public servant within the meaning of Section 2(c) of the Act. The sanction for prosecution against the petitioner is granted by the Inspector General of Registration.

12. Section 19(1) of the Act (as it stood before the amendment by Act 16 of 2018) read as follows:

"19. Previous sanction necessary for prosecution.--

(1) No Court shall take cognizance of an offence punishable under Sections 7, 10, 11, 13 and 15 alleged to have been committed by a public servant, except with the previous sanction,--(a) in the case of a person who is employed in connection with the affairs of the Union and is not removable from his office save by or with the sanction of the Central Government, of that Government; (b) in the case of a person who is employed in connection w