Case Note & Summary
The case involves three revision applications filed by Iqbalsingh Soni, Sevasingh Kalra, and three others (Gurminder Singh Gill, A.S. Jagannatha Rao, and Ramesh Vasant Naphade) challenging a common order dated 22/12/2020 passed by the Special Judge, CBI, Nagpur, taking cognizance and issuing process against them for offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and the Indian Penal Code. The applicants were private persons alleged to have conspired with public servants in corruption cases investigated by the CBI. The main contention was that the Special Judge could not take cognizance without sanction under Section 19 of the PC Act. The court analyzed the provisions of Section 19 and held that the requirement of sanction applies only to public servants, not private persons. It also held that the revision against issuance of process is maintainable only in exceptional cases, and the order was not perverse. The court dismissed all three revision applications, upholding the cognizance and issuance of process.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure Code - Revision - Maintainability - Section 397 Cr.P.C. - Revision against order issuing process is maintainable only in exceptional cases where order is perverse or without jurisdiction - The court held that the order of the Special Judge taking cognizance and issuing process was not perverse or without jurisdiction, hence revision was not maintainable (Paras 10-12). B) Prevention of Corruption Act - Sanction for Prosecution - Section 19 - Applicability to Private Persons - Section 19 of PC Act does not require sanction for prosecution of private persons - The court held that the requirement of sanction under Section 19 applies only to public servants, and the applicants being private persons, no sanction was necessary (Paras 13-15). C) Prevention of Corruption Act - Cognizance - Section 19 - Validity - Cognizance by Special Judge under Section 19 of PC Act is valid even without sanction for non-public servants - The court held that the Special Judge correctly took cognizance as the applicants were not public servants and no sanction was required (Paras 16-18). D) Criminal Procedure Code - Issuance of Process - Section 204 Cr.P.C. - Prima Facie Case - At the stage of issuance of process, only a prima facie case is required - The court held that the Special Judge had sufficient material to form a prima facie opinion, and the revision court cannot re-appreciate evidence at this stage (Paras 19-21).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Special Judge could take cognizance and issue process against private persons without sanction under Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, and whether the revision applications against such order are maintainable.
Final Decision
All three revision applications are dismissed. The order of the Special Judge taking cognizance and issuing process is upheld.
Law Points
- Sanction for prosecution under Section 19 of Prevention of Corruption Act
- 1988 is not required for private persons
- Cognizance by Special Judge under Section 19 of PC Act is valid even without sanction for non-public servants
- Revision against issuance of process is maintainable only in exceptional cases
- Prima facie case for framing charge is sufficient at stage of cognizance
