Cognizance of offences without necessary sanctions under Cr.P.C. and P.C. Act is illegal, warranting discharge of accused.

ORDER

Dated this the 12^th day of March, 2026 Accused Nos. 1, 3, 6, 10 and 11 have filed Crl.Rev.

Petition No. 1143/2025 challenging dismissal of the order seeking discharge, mainly on urging that cognizance for the offences alleged against them was taken without obtaining sanction, which is mandated under Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as 'Cr.P.C', for short). Similarly, the prosecution failed to obtain sanction under Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as 'P.C. Act', for short) to prosecute the accused persons for the offences alleged to be committed under the P.C. Act. Accused No. 2 in the same case has filed Criminal Revision Petition No. 1145/2025 challenging the dismissal of discharge petition on the same grounds.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioners and the learned Special Public Prosecutor in detail and perused the order impugned.

3. On the crux of the matter, it is seen that the prosecution alleges commission of offences punishable under Sections 406 and 409 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as ' IPC ', for short) by the revision petitioner/accused No.2 and Section 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of the P.C. Act, as well as under Sections 468 and 471 read with 120(B) of the , by the revision petitioners/accused Nos. 1, 3, 6, 10, and 11. The learned counsel for the revision petitioners reiterated the contentions raised before the Special Court mainly thrusting on the absence of sanction for the purpose of taking cognizance.

4. On scrutiny of the records, the learned Special Public Prosecutor would submit that sanction under Section 197 of the Cr.P.C., or under Section 19 of the P.C. Act, failed to be obtained before filing final report and the cognizance in this matter was taken by the Special Court without sanction. Therefore, the cognizance cannot be justified, however, the liberty of the prosecution to conduct further investigation and to obtain the required sanction, for the grounds available may be protected, even after the discharge of the revision petitioners.

5. Taking into consideration the rival submissions, it is discernible that the cognizance for the offences punishable under Sections 406 and 409 of the IPC and Section 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of the P.C. Act, as well as under Sections 468 and 471 read with 120(B) of the , have been taken by the Special Judge without prosecution sanction either under Section 197 of the Cr.P.C. or under Section 19 of the P.C. Act. Therefore, without much ado, the cognizance taken by the Special Judge is non est in the eye of law and, therefore, the entire proceedings, at the option of the Special Judge, are found to be illegal and the same would require interference.

In that view of the matter, the revision petitions stand allowed by setting aside the common order dated 07.10.2025 in Crl.M.P.Nos. 351/2022 and 352/2022 in C.C.

No.17/2020 in V.C.No.07/2010/SIU-I of the Special Judge, Thiruvananthapuram and the revision petitioner/accused No. 2 is discharged from the offences punishable under Sections 406 and 409 of the IPC and the revision petitioners/accused Nos. 1, 3, 6, 10, and 11 are discharged from the offences punishable under Sections 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of the P.C. Act, as well as under Sections 468 and 471 read with 120(B) of the . It is specifically made clear that the power of the Investigating Officer to refile the final report, along with prosecution sanction or conduct further investigation of the case, as permitted under law is left open.

The learned Special Judge is directed to return the final report, if applied for, by the Investigating officer for the said purpose.

Sd/-