Case Note & Summary
The applicant, UPS Madan, who was the Additional Chief Secretary (Finance) and later Chief Secretary of Maharashtra, filed an application under Section 482 CrPC to quash an order passed by the Special Judge (Prevention of Corruption Act) for Greater Mumbai on 25 October 2018. The order directed the Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB), Mumbai to investigate a complaint filed by Respondent No.2 under Section 156(3) CrPC against the applicant for alleged offences under Section 120B, 409 IPC and Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The complaint alleged that a company, Indian Film Combine Pvt. Ltd., was developing a drive-in theatre at Bandra Kurla Complex with 2.0 FSI and constructing shops and hotels, and that the applicant, as a public servant, had committed criminal misconduct. The applicant argued that the Special Judge could not direct investigation without prior sanction under Section 19 of the PC Act, which is mandatory for prosecuting public servants. The State supported the applicant, while Respondent No.2 opposed. The High Court analyzed the provisions of Section 19 of the PC Act and Section 156(3) CrPC, and held that an order under Section 156(3) directing investigation against a public servant for PC Act offences amounts to taking cognizance, and thus requires prior sanction. The court quashed the impugned order, emphasizing that the protection under Section 19 is mandatory and cannot be circumvented.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure Code - Section 156(3) - Investigation Order - Sanction under Prevention of Corruption Act - The Special Judge directed ACB to investigate a complaint against the applicant, a public servant, under Section 156(3) CrPC for offences under Section 120B, 409 IPC and Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The applicant challenged the order on the ground that no sanction under Section 19 of the PC Act was obtained. Held that the order directing investigation without sanction is illegal and liable to be quashed, as it effectively takes cognizance of the offence without the mandatory protection under Section 19 (Paras 1-10). B) Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - Section 19 - Sanction for Prosecution - Mandatory Requirement - The court held that Section 19 of the PC Act provides a mandatory protection to public servants against prosecution without prior sanction from the competent authority. The order under Section 156(3) CrPC directing investigation against a public servant for offences under the PC Act amounts to taking cognizance and is invalid without such sanction. The protection extends even to former public servants for acts done in official capacity (Paras 11-20). C) Criminal Procedure Code - Section 156(3) - Cognizance - Distinction - The court clarified that an order under Section 156(3) CrPC directing investigation is a judicial order and amounts to taking cognizance of the offence. Therefore, the mandatory requirement of sanction under Section 19 of the PC Act cannot be bypassed by resorting to Section 156(3) CrPC. The Special Judge's order was set aside (Paras 21-25).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Special Judge could direct investigation under Section 156(3) CrPC against a public servant without prior sanction under Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
Final Decision
The High Court allowed the application and quashed the impugned order dated 25 October 2018 passed by the Special Judge (PC Act) directing investigation under Section 156(3) CrPC against the applicant.
Law Points
- Sanction for prosecution under Section 19 of Prevention of Corruption Act is mandatory before taking cognizance
- Order under Section 156(3) CrPC directing investigation against a public servant without sanction is illegal
- Protection under Section 19 extends to former public servants for acts done in official capacity
- Investigation cannot be ordered to circumvent sanction requirement
