2015 Supreme(Raj) 1837

RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT AT JAIPUR BENCH
Prashant Kumar Agarwal, J.
Ram Singh Kaswa & Anr. - Appellant
Versus
CBI & Ors. - Respondent
S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No. 4217 of 2013.
Decided On : 30-09-2015

Prosecution sanction under Section 19 (1) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, is required even at the stage of Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C., and in the absence of prior sanction, the complaint cannot be sent for registration of FIR and investigation.

Headnote:

CRIMINAL MISC. PETITION - SECTION 482 CR.P.C. - COMPLAINT UNDER SECTION 200 CR.P.C. - OFFENCES UNDER SECTIONS 120-B, 420, 466, 467, 468, 469 & 471 IPC - PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION ACT, 1988 - SECTION 13 (1) (C) AND (D) READ WITH SECTION 13 (2) - SECTION 19 - SECTION 156 (3) CR.P.C. - DELHI SPECIAL POLICE ESTABLISHMENT ACT, 1946 - SECTION 6-A - SECTION 195 CR.P.C. - INHERENT POWERS OF THE COURT UNDER SECTION 482 CR.P.C. - CBI INVESTIGATION - PROSECUTION SANCTION - JURISDICTION OF THE COURT - MAINTAINABILITY OF THE COMPLAINT - PRINCIPLES GOVERNING TRANSFER OF INVESTIGATION FROM STATE AGENCY TO CBI.

Fact of the Case:

Petitioners filed a complaint under Section 200 Cr.P.C. against the respondents before the Court below alleging criminal conspiracy, fraud, and misappropriation of public property. The Court dismissed the complaint, holding that prosecution sanction under Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, was required and that the Court lacked jurisdiction to direct CBI investigation under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C.

Finding of the Court:

1. Prosecution sanction under Section 19 (1) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, is required even at the stage of Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C., and in the absence of prior sanction, the complaint cannot be sent for registration of FIR and investigation. 2. A Magistrate has no authority under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. to direct CBI to register FIR and undertake investigation on the basis of a complaint. 3. The bar of Section 195 Cr.P.C. is applicable only when forgery in respect of a document is committed while such document is in the custody of the Court. 4. After the Supreme Court struck down Section 6-A of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946, the bar of said provision is no more applicable, and the complaint cannot be held to be not maintainable merely by reason of the absence of prior permission by the Central Government. 5. The power to transfer investigation from the State investigating agency to CBI must be exercised sparingly, cautiously, and in exceptional situations.

Issues: 1. Whether prosecution sanction under Section 19 (1) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, is required at the stage of Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C.? 2. Whether a Magistrate has the authority to direct CBI to register FIR and undertake investigation on the basis of a complaint under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C.? 3. Whether the bar of Section 195 Cr.P.C. is applicable when forgery in respect of a document is committed before it was filed in Court? 4. Whether the complaint is maintainable in the absence of prior permission by the Central Government under Section 6-A of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946? 5. Under what circumstances can the Court direct CBI investigation while exercising its inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C.?

Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Supreme Court held in Anil Kumar v. M.K. Aiyappa that prosecution sanction under Section 19 (1) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, is required even at the stage of Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C., and in the absence of prior sanction, the complaint cannot be sent for registration of FIR and investigation. 2. The Court held that a Magistrate has no authority under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. to direct CBI to register FIR and undertake investigation on the basis of a complaint, as the Court below has original jurisdiction to inquire into and try cases for offences under the provisions of the Act in which investigation has been conducted by CBI. 3. The Court held that the bar of Section 195 Cr.P.C. is applicable only when forgery in respect of a document is committed while such document is in the custody of the Court, and not when it was forged and fabricated before it was produced in Court. 4. The Court held that after the Supreme Court struck down Section 6-A of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946, the bar of said provision is no more applicable, and the complaint cannot be held to be not maintainable merely by reason of the absence of prior permission by the Central Government. 5. The Court held that the power to transfer investigation from the State investigating agency to CBI must be exercised sparingly, cautiously, and in exceptional situations, such as when it is necessary to provide credibility and instill confidence in the investigation, when the incident may have national and international ramifications, or when it is necessary for doing complete justice and enforcing fundamental rights.

Final Decision: The Court dismissed the criminal miscellaneous petition, holding that the complaint was not maintainable due to the absence of prosecution sanction under Section 19 (1) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, and that the Court below lacked jurisdiction to direct CBI investigation under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C.