Case Note & Summary
The case pertains to a criminal revision application filed by two applicants, Kisan Baliram Rathod and Vibhuti Radharaman Devnath, challenging an order dated 21.09.2016 passed by the learned Special Judge, Akola, rejecting their application for discharge in Special ACB Case No. 2 of 2014. The applicants were accused Nos. 1 and 2 in a corruption case arising from alleged irregularities in the selection process conducted by the Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation in 2004. The applicants were public servants at the time of the alleged offence. The prosecution alleged that the accused, as members of the Selection Committee, manipulated the merit list to favor certain candidates. The applicants filed an application for discharge primarily on the ground that the prosecution was vitiated for want of valid sanction under Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The Special Judge rejected the discharge application. The High Court, after hearing the parties, allowed the revision application. The court held that sanction under Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 is a mandatory condition precedent for taking cognizance of an offence by a Special Judge. In the absence of a valid sanction, the prosecution is vitiated. The court noted that the applicants were public servants at the time of the alleged offence and were entitled to raise the issue of lack of sanction at the stage of discharge. The court further observed that the power to discharge an accused under Section 227 of CrPC can be exercised at any stage if the court finds that there is no sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. The absence of a valid sanction under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 is a sufficient ground for discharge. Consequently, the court set aside the impugned order and discharged the applicants from the case.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - Section 19 - Sanction for Prosecution - Mandatory Requirement - The court held that sanction under Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 is a condition precedent for taking cognizance of an offence by a Special Judge. In the absence of a valid sanction, the prosecution is vitiated. The applicants, who were public servants at the time of alleged offence, were entitled to raise the issue of lack of sanction at the stage of discharge. The court allowed the revision application and discharged the applicants. (Paras 5-10) B) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 227 - Discharge - Power of Court - The court reiterated that the power to discharge an accused under Section 227 of CrPC can be exercised at any stage if the court finds that there is no sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. The absence of a valid sanction under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 is a sufficient ground for discharge. (Paras 5-10)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the applicants/accused are entitled to be discharged on the ground that the prosecution against them is vitiated for want of valid sanction under Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988?
Final Decision
The revision application is allowed. The impugned order dated 21.09.2016 passed by the learned Special Judge, Akola, is set aside. The applicants are discharged from Special ACB Case No. 2 of 2014.
Law Points
- Sanction for prosecution under Section 19 of Prevention of Corruption Act
- 1988 is mandatory
- Discharge application can be considered at any stage
- Accused can raise issue of lack of sanction even after cognizance
