Page 1

JUDGMENT

1

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NOS. 1590-1591 OF 2013

(@ Special Leave Petition (Criminal) Nos.6652-6653 of 2013)

Anil Kumar & Ors.

….. Appellants

Versus

M.K. Aiyappa & Anr.

….. Respondents

J U D G M E N T

K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN, J.

1.

Leave granted.

2.

We are in this case concerned with the question

whether the Special Judge/Magistrate is justified in referring

a private complaint made under Section 200 Cr.P.C. for

investigation by the Deputy Superintendent of Police –

Page 2

JUDGMENT

2

Karnataka Lokayukta, in exercise of powers conferred under

Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. without the production of a valid

sanction order under Section 19 of the Prevention of

Corruption Act, 1988.

3.

The Appellants herein filed a private complaint under

Section 200 of Cr.P.C. before the Additional City Civil and

Special Judge for Prevention of Corruption on 9.10.2012. The

complaint of the Appellants was that the first respondent

with mala fide intention passed an order dated 30.6.2012 in

connivance with other officers and restored valuable land in

favour of a private person. On a complaint being raised, the

first respondent vide order dated 6.10.2012 recalled the

earlier order. Alleging that the offence which led to issuance

of the order dated 30.6.2012 constituted ingredients

contained under Section 406, 409, 420, 426, 463, 465, 468,

471, 474 read with Section 120-B IPC and Section 149 IPC

and Section 8, 13(1)(c), 13(1)(d), 13(1)(e), 13(2) read with

Section 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, a private

Page 3

JUDGMENT

3

complaint was preferred under Section 200 Cr.P.C. On

receipt of the complaint, the Special Judge passed an order

on 20.10.2012 which reads as follows :-

“On going through the complaint, documents

and hearing the complainant, I am of the sincere

view that the matter requires to be referred for

investigation by the Deputy Superintendent of

Police, Karnataka Lokayukta, Bangalore Urban,

under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. Accordingly, I

answer point No.1 in the affirmative.

Point No.2 : In view of my finding on point

No.1 and for the foregoing reasons, I proceed to

pass the following :

ORDER

The complaint is referred to Deputy

Superintendent of Police – 3 Karnataka Lokayukta,

Bangalore Urban under Section 156(3) of Cr.PC for

investigation and to report.”

4.

Aggrieved by the said order, the first respondent herein

approached the High Court of Karnataka by filing Writ

Petition Nos.13779-13780 of 2013. It was contended before

the High Court that since the appellant is a pubic servant, a

complaint brought against him without being accompanied

by a valid sanction order could not have been entertained by

Page 4

JUDGMENT

4

the Special Court on the allegations of offences punishable

under the Prevention of Corruption Act. It was submitted

that even though the power to order investigation under

Section 156(3) can be exercised by a Magistrate or the

Special Judge at pre-cognizance stage, yet, the

governmental sanction cannot be dispensed with. It was

also contended that the requirement of a sanction is the pre-

requisite even to present a private complaint in respect of a

public servant concerning the alleged offence said to have

been committed in discharge of his public duty.

5.

The High Court, after hearing the parties, took the view

that the Special Judge could not have taken notice of the

private complaint unless the same was accompanied by a

sanction order, irrespective of whether the Court was acting

at a pre-cognizance stage or the post-cognizance stage, if

the complaint pertains to a public servant who is alleged to

have committed offences in discharge of his official duties.

The High Court, therefore, quashed the order passed by the

Page 5

JUDGMENT

5

Special Judge, as well as