Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Sheel Nagu and Dwarkadhish Bansal, JJ.
Baini Prasad Chansoriya (Shri) v. The State of Madhya
Pradesh & Others
Criminal Revision No. 1629 of 2022 (J); against the order dated 21.6.2021 passed by the Special Judge (PC Act), Chhatarur in Unregistered Case No. 109/2021; Decided on 9.12.2022
(1) Words and Phrases -- "approval" and "sanction" -- "approval" is used in general context -- " Sanction" used in official, formal and legal context -- "approval" denotes giving consent -- "sanction" is grant of formal permission to do something or to impose/authorize punishment. [Para 6.2
(2) Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 -- S.17A -- approval
-- Statutory bar u/s 17A is against police officer, not against Court -- informal enquiry, formal inquiry as defined in S.2(g) of CrPC and investigation cannot be conducted by police officer in absence of approval by competent authority -- on receipt of complaint alleging offence under PC Act arising from allegation of recommendation made or decision taken by public servant, police officer statutorily prohibited from conducting enquiry/inquiry/investigation unless is obtained u/s 17A. [Paras 9.2 & 9.3
(3) Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 -- S.17A -- Criminal P.C., 1973 -- S.156(3) -- jurisdiction of special Court -- statutory prohibition u/s. 17A does not restrict special Court from entering into realm of enquiry/inquiry prior to registration of offence even in a bsence of approval from competent authority -- extent of such enquiry/inquiry is merely to ascertain whether contents of application u/s. 156 (3) of CrPC prima facie reveal offence of nature contemplated u/s 17A and punishable under PC Act -- enquiry/inquiry can very well be conducted u/s 17A by Special Court, but without involving police. [Paras 9.4, 9.5 & 10.4
(4) Criminal P.C., 1973 -- S.156(3) -- Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 -- S.17A -- requirement of approval u/s. 17A in private complaint -- Special Court finds that application u/s 156(3) reveals offence of nature contemplated by S.17A of PC Act -- approval from competent authority is sine qua non before directing police to submit report or to register offence or to conduct enquiry -- responsibility of obtaining approval is on complainant -- if approval is not granted, complainant not remadilpss -- can approach superior Court for appropriate writ/direction. (2013) 10 SCC 705 explained. [Paras 9.6 to 9.8
(5) Practice -- What cannot be done directly in law, cannot be done indirectly.(2010)15 SCC 118 followed. [Para 10.4
(6) Criminal P.C., 1973 -- S.156(3) -- Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 -- Ss.17A and 19(1) -- requirement of sanction and/or approval in private complaint -- Specail Court failed to conduct enquiry to come to tentative finding as to whether application u/s 156 (3) disclosed commission of cognizable offence under PC Act, arising from recommendation or decision -- statutory prohibition u/s 17A is against police officer but not against Court -- reliance on S.19(1) or PC Act misdirected -- relevant provisions is S.17A -- dicision in Anil Kumar's case not precedent in respect of S.17A -- order rejecting application u/s 156(3) CrPC for want of sanction for prosecution set aside -- Special Court directed to reconsider application u/s 156(3) in terms of directions in paras 9 and 10 of instant order. (2013)10 SCC 705 distinguished. (2018)5 SCC 557, AIR 1951 SC 207 and (2012)3 SCC 64 referred to. (2014)2 SCC 1, (2019) 19 SCC 87 and 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 158 followed.
[Paras 10.7 to 13
¼1½ 'kCn rFkk okD;ka'k && ßvuqeksnuß rFkk ßeatwjhß & ßvuqeksnuß dk mi;ksx lk/kkj.k lanHkZ esa fd;k tkrk gS && ßeatwjhß dk mi;ksx vf/kdkfjd] vkSipkfjd rFkk fof/kd lanHkZ esa gksrk gS && ßvuqeksnuß ls lgefr nsuk |ksfrr gS && ßeatwjhß dqN djus ds fy, vFkok naM vf/kjksfir@izkf/kÑr djus ds fy, vkSipkfjd vuqefr dk iznku gSA ¼iSjk 6-2
¼2½ Hkz"Vkpkj fuokj.k vf/kfu;e] 1988 && /kkjk 17d && vuqeksnu && èkkjk 17d ds v/khu dkuwuh otZu iqfyl vf/kdkjh ds fo#) gS] U;k;ky; ds fo#) ugha && l{ke izkf/kdkjh }kjk vuqeksnu ds vHkko esa iqfyl vf/kdkjh }kjk vukSipkfjd tk¡p] naM izfØ;k lafgrk dh /kkjk 2 ¼N½ esa ;Fkk ifjHkkf"kr vkSipkfjd tk¡p rFkk vUos"k.k ugha fd, tk ldrs && yksd lsod }kjk dh xbZ flQkfj'k vFkok fd, x, fofu'p; ds vfHkdFku ls mn~Hkwr Hkz"Vkpkj fuokj.k vfèkfu;e ds v/khu vijk/k dk vfHkdFku djus okyh f'kdk;r dh izkfIr ij iqfyl vf/kdkjh] tc rd fd /kkjk 17d ds v/khu vuqeksnu izkIr ugha fd;k x;k gks] tk¡p@iwNrkN@vUos"k.k djus ls dkuwuh :i ls izfrfl) gSA ¼iSjk 9-2 ,oa 9-3
¼3½ Hkz"Vkpkj fuokj.k vf/kfu;e] 1988 && /kkjk 17d && naM izfØ;k lafgrk] 1973 && /kkjk 156¼3½ && fo'ks"k U;k;ky; dh vf/kdkfjrk && /kkjk 17d ds v/khu dkuwuh izfr"ks/k fo'ks"k U;k;ky; dks] l{ke izkf/kdkjh ls vuqeksnu ds vHkko esa Hkh] vijk/k ds jftLVªhdj.k ds iwoZ tk¡p@iwNrkN ds {ks= esa izfo"V gksus ls ugha jksdrk && ,slh tk¡p@iwNrkN dh lhek ek= ;g vfHkfuf'pr djus rd dh gksrh gS fd naM izfØ;k lafgrk dh /kkjk 156 ¼3½ ds v/khu vkosnu dh varoZLrq ls izFke n`"V~;k /kkjk 17d ds v/khu vuq/;kr izÑfr dk rFkk Hkz"Vkpkj fuokj.k vf/kfu;e ds v/khu naMuh; vijk/k izdV gksrk gS ;k ugha && fo'ks"k U;k;ky; }kjk /kkjk 17d ds v/khu tk¡p@iwNrkN HkyhHkk¡fr dh tk ldrh gS] ijarq iqfyl ds varoZfyr fd, fcukA ¼iSjk 9-4] 9-5 ,oa 10-4
¼4½ naM izfØ;k lafgrk] 1973 && /kkjk 156¼3½ && Hkz"Vkpkj fuokj.k vfèkfu;e] 1988 && /kkjk 17d && izkbosV ifjokn esa /kkjk 17d ds v/khu vuqeksnu dh vis{kk && fo'ks"k U;k;ky; dk fu"d"kZ fd /kkjk 156 ¼3½ ds v/khu vkosnu ls Hkz"Vkpkj fuokj.k vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 17d }kjk vuq/;kr izÑfr dk vijk/k izdV gksrk gS && iqfyl dks izfrosnu is'k djus vFkok vijk/k jftLVªhÑr djus vFkok tk¡p djus dk funs'k nsus ds iwoZ l{ke izkf/kdkjh ls vuqeksnu vfuok;Z gS && vuqeksnu vfHkizkIr djus dk mÙkjnkf;Ro ifjoknh ij gS && vuqeksnu iznku ugha fd;k tkrk rks ifjoknh fu#ik; ugha && leqfpr fjV@funs'k ds fy, ofj"B U;k;ky; tk ldrk gSA ¼2013½10 ,l lh lh 705 Li"VhÑrA ¼iSjk 9-6 ls 9-8
¼5½ izFkk && tks fof/k esa izR;{kr% ugha fd;k tk ldrk og ijks{kr% ugha fd;k tk ldrkA ¼2010½15 ,l lh lh 118 vuqlfjrA ¼iSjk 10-4
¼6½ naM izfØ;k lafgrk] 1973 && /kkjk 156¼3½ && Hkz"Vkpkj fuokj.k vfèkfu;e] 1988 && /kkjk 17d rFkk 19¼1½ && izkbosV ifjokn esa eatwjh vkSj@vFkok vuqeksnu dh vis{kk && fo'ks"k U;k;ky; us bl ckjs esa vafre fu"d"kZ fudkyus ds fy, tk¡p ugha dh fd /kkjk 156¼3½ ds v/khu vkosnu ls flQkfj'k vFkok fofu'p; esa mnHkwr] Hkz"Vkpkj fuokj.k vf/kfu;e ds v/khu laKs; vijk/k fd;k tkuk izdV gksrk gS ;k ugha && /kkjk 17d ds v/khu dkuwuh izfr"ks/k iqfyl vfèkdkjh ds fo#) gS] ijarq U;k;ky; ds fo#) ugha && Hkz"Vkpkj fuokj.k vfèkfu;e dh /kkjk 19¼1½ dk voyac Hkzeo'k gS && lqlaxr mica/k /kkjk 17d gS && vfuy dqekj ds ekeys dk fofu'p; /kkjk 17d ds laca/k esa iwoZ U;k; ugha && vfHk;kstu dh eatwjh ds vHkko ds dkj.k /kkjk 156 ¼3½ ds v/khu vkosnu ukeatwj djus dk vkns'k vikLr && /kkjk 156 ¼3½ ds v/khu vkosnu ij bl vkns'k ds iSjk 9 ,oa 10 esa fn, x, funs'kksa ds vuqlkj bl vkns'k ds iSjk 9 ,oa 10 esa fn, x, funs'kksa ds vuqlkj iqufoZpkj djus dk fo'ks"k U;k;ky; dks funs'kA ¼2013½ 10 ,l lh lh 705 izHksfnrA ¼2018½5 ,l lh lh 557] , vkb vkj 1951 ,l lh 207 rFkk ¼2012½3 ,l lh lh 64 fufnZ"VA ¼2014½2 ,l lh lh 1] ¼2019½19 ,l lh lh 87 rFkk 2022 ykboykW ¼,l lh½158 vuqlfjrA ¼iSjk 10-7 ls 13
ORDER
Nagu, J. -- 1. Revisional jurisdiction of this Court u/S.397 of Cr.P.C. is invoked by this petition to assail final order dated 21.6.2021 (Annexure-P/8) passed in UNCR (Unregistered Case) No.109/2021 by Special Judge (PC Act), Chhatarpur rejecting an application u/S 156(3) of Cr.P.C. preferred by petitioner in his capacity as District President of Madhya Pradesh Rajya Patrit Adhikari Sang alleging offences punishable u/S 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (PC Act) and u/Ss. 420, 467, 468 and 471 read with section 120-B of IPC against respondent Nos.6 & 7 herein.
2. Reason assigned by learned Special Judge for rejecting the application u/S 156(3) of Cr.P.C. is want of sanction for prosecution by the competent authority in the light of law laid down by apex Court in Anil Kumar and others v. M.K. Aiyappoa and another, [(2013) 10 SCC 705].
3. Learned counsel for rival parties are heard at length on the question of admission so also final disposal.
4. The undisputed attending facts herein are as follows :
(i) The offence alleged in the application u/S 156(3) of Cr.P.C. are based on incidents which took place in the year 2012 (Prior to 28.7.2016 when section 17-A was brought on the statute book of PC Act).
(ii) The M.P. Gazetted Officer Association through the petitioner herein preferred Writ Petition No.172185/2020 seeking direction to the police to register offences alleged against the respondents No.6 & 7 herein.
This Writ Petition No.17285/2020 was finally dismissed on 24.2.2021 4 Cr.R. No.1629/2022 vide Annexure-P/6 as having been withdrawn with liberty to petitioner to avail remedy available u/S 156(3) or u/S 200 of Cr.P.C
(iii) Availing the aforesaid liberty, petitioner filed application application u/S 156(3) of Cr.P.C. dated 5.4.2021 vide Annexure-P/7.
(iv) The aforesaid application u/S 156(3) of Cr.P.C. suffered dismissal by the impugned order dated 21.6.2021 on the ground of want of sanction for prosecution and the law laid down by apex Court in Anil Kumar (supra).
(v) Indisputably, neither any FIR has been lodged nor any criminal Court has taken cognizance of the offence alleged by petitioner till date.
(vi) The law laid down in the case of Anil Kumar (supra), has been doubted by apex Court in it’s subsequent verdict rendered by three Judges in Manju Surana v. Sunil Arora and others [(2018) 5 SCC 557] by posing the question that whether any direction can be passed by Magistrate u/S 156 (3) alleging offence punishable under PC Act without prior sanction for prosecution or not. The said question has been referred to larger Bench, which is yet to pronounce it’s verdict.
(vii) The nature of allegations made in the application u/S 156(3) of Cr.P.C. in the case in hand are alleged to lie in the realm of “recommendations made” or “decisions taken” by respondents No. 6 & 7 while discharging their official duties as public servants and thus Sec.17-A of PC Act becomes relevant.
(viii) Substantive, as well as procedural provisions of PC Act underwent widespread amendment by Prevention of Corruption (Amendment) Act, 2018 which came into force from 26.7.2018 inter alia introducing section 17-A in the PC Act, which statutorily prohibited Police Officer from conducting enquiry or inquiry or investigation into any offence punishable under PC Act arising from “recommendation made” or “decision taken” by public servant without previous approval of competent authority.
5. Before proceeding to adjudicate the dispute, it is apt to reproduce section 17-A which was inducted in PC Act w.e.f. 26.07.2018, as follows :
“17A. Enquiry or Inquiry or investigation of offences relatable to recommendations made or decision taken by public servant in discharge of official functions or duties.- No police officer shall conduct any enquiry or inquiry or investigation into any offence alleged to have been committed by a public se
Prior sanction is mandatory for investigating public servants under the Prevention of Corruption Act, distinguishing between investigation and cognizance stages.
Bare perusal of Section 17A of P.C. Act would indicate bar for enquiry, inquiry or investigation into an offence under the P.C. Act is on the Police Officer.
Enquiry or Inquiry or investigation of offences decision taken by public servant in discharge of official functions or duties - Once a constitutional court examines and satisfies itself about necessi....
Persons authorised to investigate - Misappropriation of funds - Scope of S. 17A - An approval under S. 17A for conducting any enquiry, inquiry or investigation was warranted only when act done by acc....
It is well settled law that if a judgment is referred to a larger Bench, proposition of law so enunciated in judgment does not lose its efficacy and it continues to remain a binding precedent till ov....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that section 17-A of the Prevention of Corruption Act does not apply to an investigation completed prior to its introduction on the statute book. T....
The central legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation and application of Section 17A of the PC Act, 1988, which restricts the requirement of prior approval for initiating enquiry/....
Point of Law : High Court was absolutely right in setting aside the order of the Special Judge. Unlike Section 19 of the PC Act, the protection under Section 197 CrPC is available to the public serva....
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
