SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2006 Supreme(P&H) 3432

PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
Satish Kumar Mittal, J.
Dr. Jaswant Singh
Versus
State Of Punjab
Criminal Miscellaneous No. 47115 of 2003,
Criminal Miscellaneous No. 5507 of 2005,
Criminal Revision No. 790 of 2006,16036 of 2006,23571 of 2006,
Decided On : SEPTEMBER 6, 2006

i) Sanction for prosecution - Court cannot take cognizance of the offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act without there being any sanction by the competent authority.
ii) Cancellation Report by Police - Options available with Court - Explained.
iii) Sanction for prosecution - Relevance of - Explained.

Headnote:Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - Section 7, 13 (2), 19 - Allegations of taking bribe - Sanction for prosecution - Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 190 (1) (b) - Cognizance of offence - Appropriate authority refused to grant sanction for prosecution - Investigating agency prepared untraced report - Special judge disagreeing with untraced report and taking cognizance of offence against the accused under Section 190 (1) (b) of the Code, irrespective of the fact that there was no valid sanction concluding that "prime facie there was sufficient materials/evidence" - Whether the Special Judge can take cognizance of the offence (pertaining to the Prevention of Corruption Act) under Section 190 (1) of the Code ? NO Inter alia held;

       1. Court cannot take cognizance of the offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act without there being any sanction by the competent authority (Para 15)

       2. Prior sanction is sine qua none for taking cognizance of offence under the provisions of Prevention of Corruption Act. (Para 14)

       3. Provisions of sub Section (3) and (4) of Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act are not applicable at the time of taking cognizance of the offence. (Para 17)

       4. Even on a complaint, no cognizance can be taken by the Special Judge without a previous sanction against the alleged accused. (Para 16)

       5. The Sanctioning Authority has absolute discretion to grant or not to grant the sanction, but it is mandatory that no Court can take cognizance of the alleged offence without there being a valid sanction. (Para 10)

       6. The grant of sanction is not an idle formality or an acrimonious exercise but a solemn and sacrosanct act, which affords protection to Government servants against frivolous prosecutions. (Para 10)

       Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 173 - Untraced report or Cancellation report - General principles explained - Inter alia held; options available to the Court :

       a) He may accept the report and drop the proceeding.

       b) He may disagree with the report and direct for further investigation in the case by the investigating agency; or

       He may disagree with the report and take cognizance of the offence himself by taking the view that there is sufficient ground, material or evidence for proceeding further against the accused, and issue process to the accused. (Para 1)

       Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 190 (1) - Cognizance of offence by Magistrate - Magistrate must apply his mind while taking cognizance of offence - Principle explained. (Para 10)

       Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - Section 7, 10, 11, 13, 19 - Previous Sanction - Prevention of Corruption Act is a special statute - No Court can take cognizance of an offence punishable under Sections 7, 10, 11, 13 and 15 of the Prevention of Corruption Act except with the previous sanction of the competent authority. (Para 11)

       Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - Section 19 (3), 19 (4) - Sanction - Object of - The conviction or sentence should not be set - aside in appeal, merely on the technicalities pertaining to some omissions or irregularities in grant of sanction. (Para 8)

       

Judgment

Satish Kumar Mittal, J.

1. This judgment shall dispose of Crl. Revision No. 790 of 2006 and Crl. Misc. Nos. 47115-M of 2003, 5507-M of 2005, 16036-M of 2006 and 23571-M of 2006. These petitions are arising from the orders passed by the Special Judge for taking cognizance of the offence while not agreeing with the untraced report/cancellation report submitted by the investigating agency. These orders are arising in two situations : firstly, where the investigating agency after considering the material collected during the investigation, came to the conclusion that there is sufficient material/evidence to proceed against the accused. So, the investigating agency applied for sanction for prosecution of the accused from the competent authority. However, the same was not granted and accordingly the untraced report was submitted; and secondly where during the investigation, the allegations in the FIR were found to be false, therefore, the investigating agency without applying for the requisite sanction from the competent authority submitted the cancellation report. Crl. Revision No. 790 of 2006, Crl. Misc. Nos. 47115-M of 2003, 5507-M of 2005 and 16036-M of 2006 are covered in the situation where the Special Judge, while not agreeing with the untraced report submitted by the investigating agency, took cognizance of the offence under Sections 190(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure and summoned the accused to face trial. Crl. Misc. No. 23571-M of 2006 is covered in the situation where the Special Judge, while not agreeing with the cancellation report submitted by the investigating agency, took cognizance of the offence under Sections 190(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure and summoned the accused to face trial.

2. In these petitions, a common question of law is involved, i.e., whether the Special Judge can take cognizance of the offence (pertaining to the Prevention of Corruption Act) under Section 190(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as `the Code) even without there being a valid sanction granted by the competent authority while considering and not agreeing with the untraced or cancellation report submitted by the investigating agency.

3. To appreciate the aforesaid question, the facts have been taken from Crl. Revision No. 790 of 2006.

4. In this petition, on a complaint made by one Veer Singh, the police registered a case under Sections 7 and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as `the PC Act) against petitioner Dr. Jaswant Singh on the allegation that he had taken the bribe of Rs. 7,000/- for giving a wrong medico-legal report. During the investigation, the police found sufficient material/evidence against the petitioner. Therefore, the investigating agency decided to submit the challan against him. In view of the said decision, the investigating agency applied for sanction for prosecution of the petitioner under Section 19 of the PC Act, but the appropriate authority refused to grant sanction for prosecution of the petitioner. Then the investigating agency prepared the untraced report and submitted it to the Special Court. The Special Judge vide order dated 10.2.2006 while disagreeing with the untraced report, came to the conclusion that prima facie there is sufficient material/evidence against the accused for commission of the alleged offence under Sections 7 and 13(2) of the PC Act and has taken cognizance against the accused under Section 190(1)(b) of the Code irrespective of the fact there was no valid sanction for prosecution of the petitioner by the competent authority.

5. In the impugned orders, the Special Judge has given two-fold reasoning for taking cognizance of the alleged offence without there being valid sanction. Firstly, that when a cancellation or untraced report is presented before a Magistrate/Special Judge for his acceptance, three options are available to him :

(a) he may accept the report and drop the proceedings;

(b) he may disagr

































Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top