Case Note & Summary
The applicant, Bibhas Chandra Singh, a public servant employed as General Manager (Mines) in Western Coalfields Ltd., filed a criminal revision application against the order dated 10/7/2014 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Nagpur (Special Judge under the Prevention of Corruption Act), dismissing his application for discharge in Special Case No. 6 of 2011. The applicant was being prosecuted along with four others for offences under Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and Section 120B read with Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code. The case arose from a Memorandum of Understanding between the Directorate General of Resettlement and Coal India Limited for resettlement of ex-servicemen. The prosecution alleged that the applicant and others conspired to cause wrongful loss to the government by awarding contracts to ineligible ex-servicemen companies. The applicant sought discharge primarily on the ground that no valid sanction under Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act was obtained before taking cognizance. The trial court dismissed the application, holding that sanction was not required as the applicant was not a public servant at the time of the alleged offence. The High Court examined the material on record and found that the applicant was indeed a public servant within the meaning of the Act. The court held that sanction under Section 19 is mandatory and its absence renders the proceedings invalid. The court also noted that the co-accused, who were not public servants, could not claim discharge on this ground. The High Court allowed the revision application, set aside the trial court's order, and discharged the applicant from the case. The court directed that the trial against the other accused may continue.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure Code - Discharge - Section 227 Cr.P.C. - Standard of Proof - The court must consider the entire material on record and if no prima facie case is made out, the accused is entitled to discharge. (Para 5) B) Prevention of Corruption Act - Sanction for Prosecution - Section 19 - Mandatory Requirement - Sanction under Section 19 is a condition precedent for taking cognizance of offences under the Act. Absence of valid sanction vitiates the entire proceedings. (Paras 6-10) C) Prevention of Corruption Act - Sanction for Prosecution - Section 19 - Applicability to Co-accused - The requirement of sanction applies only to public servants; co-accused who are not public servants cannot claim discharge on this ground. (Para 11) D) Prevention of Corruption Act - Sanction for Prosecution - Section 19 - Effect of Invalid Sanction - If sanction is not obtained or is invalid, the court cannot proceed against the public servant. The proceedings are void ab initio. (Paras 12-15)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the applicant, a public servant, can be discharged on the ground that the sanction for prosecution under Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 was not obtained prior to taking cognizance of the offence.
Final Decision
The High Court allowed the criminal revision application, set aside the order dated 10/7/2014 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Nagpur, and discharged the applicant from Special Case No. 6 of 2011. The court directed that the trial against the other accused may continue.
Law Points
- Sanction for prosecution under Section 19 of Prevention of Corruption Act is mandatory
- prior sanction is required for prosecution of public servant
- lack of sanction renders proceedings invalid
