Revisional jurisdiction of this Court u/S.397 of Cr.P.C. is invoked by

this petition to assail final order dated 21.06.2021 (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 Vs. 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 28.07.2016

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 respondent Nos.6 & 7 herein.

This Writ Petition No.17285/2020 was finally dismissed on 24.02.2021

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vide Annexure-P/6 as having been withdrawn with liberty to petitioner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 05.04.2021 vide Annexure-P/7.

(iv)

The aforesaid application u/S 156(3) of Cr.P.C. suffered dismissal by

the impugned order dated 21.06.2021 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 Vs. 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 respondent Nos.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)

5 Cr.R. No.1629/2022

Act, 2018 which came into force from 26.07.2018 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 servant under this Act, where the alleged offence is

relatable to an