Case Note & Summary
The case arose from a Criminal Appeal filed by the State through the Central Bureau of Investigation against the judgment of the High Court of Bombay at Goa, which upheld the conclusion of the learned Special Judge that previous sanction was necessary to prosecute a public servant under Section 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The factual background involved allegations against the respondents, who were public servants, for purchasing flats at inflated prices, resulting in a significant loss to the department. The investigation revealed that one respondent attempted to offer a bribe to the complainant to close the case. The Special Judge concluded that previous sanction was required for prosecution under Section 12, leading to the High Court's affirmation of this decision. The Supreme Court, however, examined the necessity of previous sanction for cognizance of offences under Section 12. The court noted that Section 12 pertains to abetment of offences defined in Sections 7 or 11, but it is a distinct offence in itself. The court emphasized that the legislature had explicitly omitted Section 12 from the requirement of previous sanction under Section 19, and thus, the High Court's interpretation was incorrect. The Supreme Court ultimately allowed the appeal, setting aside the High Court's judgment and clarifying that no previous sanction is required for prosecuting under Section 12 of the Act.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Prosecution of Public Servants - Requirement of Previous Sanction - Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, Section 12 - The court held that previous sanction is not required for prosecuting a public servant under Section 12, as it is not included in the offences necessitating sanction under Section 19. The High Court's interpretation that Section 12 requires sanction was found erroneous, as the legislature intentionally omitted it from the purview of Section 19 (Paras 18-19).
Issue of Consideration
Whether previous sanction is necessary for taking cognizance of an offence punishable under Section 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the High Court's judgment and clarifying that no previous sanction is required for prosecuting under Section 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
Law Points
- Previous sanction
- Public servant prosecution
- Section 12
- Prevention of Corruption Act
- 1988
- Cognizance of offences
