High Court of Karnataka Allows State's Revision and Dismisses Accused's Revision in Lokayukta Corruption Case — Sanction for Prosecution Under Section 19 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 Must Be Granted by Competent Authority Before Taking Cognizance, Not Before Filing Charge Sheet.

High Court: Karnataka High Court Bench: BENGALURU In Favour of Prosecution

Admin

2026-05-18 19:58:34

Font size:

Case Note & Summary

The case involves two criminal revision petitions arising from an order dated 23.08.2017 passed by the LXXVI Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge and Special Judge, Bengaluru, in Special C.C. No.24/2013. The State of Karnataka, through the Karnataka Lokayukta Police, filed Criminal Revision Petition No.422/2018 challenging the discharge of accused No.1 (T. Manjunath, a Senior Motor Vehicle Inspector) and the direction to file a fresh charge sheet after obtaining sanction. The accused, T. Manjunath, filed Criminal Revision Petition No.599/2018 seeking to quash the same order insofar as it granted liberty to the prosecution to file a fresh charge sheet after obtaining sanction. The facts are that the Lokayukta police investigated a complaint against the accused for alleged corruption and filed a charge sheet without obtaining prior sanction under Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The accused filed a discharge application contending that the charge sheet was invalid for want of sanction. The trial court allowed the discharge application, holding that sanction was mandatory before filing the charge sheet, but gave liberty to the prosecution to obtain sanction and file a fresh charge sheet. The State argued that sanction is required only before taking cognizance, not before filing the charge sheet, and that the trial court could have deferred cognizance. The accused argued that the charge sheet itself was void ab initio and that the court could not grant such liberty. The High Court analyzed the provisions of Section 19 of the PC Act and relevant precedents, holding that sanction is a condition precedent for taking cognizance, not for filing the charge sheet. The court found that the trial court erred in discharging the accused at the pre-cognizance stage and that the proper course was to defer cognizance until sanction was obtained. Consequently, the High Court allowed the State's revision, set aside the discharge order, and directed the trial court to proceed in accordance with law after the prosecution obtains the necessary sanction. The accused's revision was dismissed as the order granting liberty to file a fresh charge sheet was not prejudicial to him.

Headnote

A) Criminal Procedure Code - Revision - Sections 397 and 401 Cr.P.C. - Challenge to discharge order - State filed revision against discharge of accused for want of sanction; accused filed revision against order granting liberty to file fresh charge sheet after obtaining sanction - Held that the trial court erred in discharging the accused as sanction under Section 19 of PC Act can be obtained before taking cognizance, and the court could have deferred cognizance pending sanction (Paras 1-10).

B) Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - Sanction for Prosecution - Section 19 - Requirement of sanction - Sanction is a condition precedent for taking cognizance, not for filing charge sheet - Trial court cannot discharge accused at pre-cognizance stage solely for want of sanction - Held that the order of discharge is set aside, and the trial court is directed to proceed in accordance with law after obtaining sanction (Paras 11-20).

Issue of Consideration

Whether the trial court was justified in discharging the accused for want of sanction under Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, when the charge sheet was filed without sanction but cognizance had not yet been taken.

Final Decision

Criminal Revision Petition No.422/2018 filed by the State is allowed. The order dated 23.08.2017 passed by the LXXVI Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge and Special Judge, Bengaluru, in Special C.C. No.24/2013 is set aside. The trial court is directed to proceed in accordance with law after the prosecution obtains necessary sanction under Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Criminal Revision Petition No.599/2018 filed by the accused is dismissed.

Law Points

Sanction for prosecution under Section 19 of Prevention of Corruption Act
1988 is mandatory before taking cognizance
but can be obtained after filing of charge sheet and before cognizance
discharge for want of sanction at pre-cognizance stage is improper
trial court cannot discharge accused without considering material on record.

Case Details

2024 LawText (KAR) (07) 41

Criminal Revision Petition No.422/2018 c/w Criminal Revision Petition No.599/2018

2024-07-26

H.P. Sandesh

Sri Prasad B.S. (for State), Sri Vijay Kumar V.B. (for accused)

State by Karnataka Lokayuktha Police (in Crl.RP 422/2018); Sri T. Manjunath (in Crl.RP 599/2018)

T. Manjunath and H.B. Mastigowda (in Crl.RP 422/2018); State of Karnataka by Karnataka Lokayukta Police (in Crl.RP 599/2018)

Nature of Litigation

Criminal revision petitions challenging order of discharge in a corruption case under Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

Remedy Sought

State sought setting aside of discharge order; accused sought quashing of order granting liberty to file fresh charge sheet.

Filing Reason

Trial court discharged accused for want of sanction under Section 19 of PC Act before taking cognizance.

Previous Decisions

Trial court allowed discharge application and gave liberty to prosecution to file fresh charge sheet after obtaining sanction.

Issues

Whether the trial court was justified in discharging the accused for want of sanction under Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, when the charge sheet was filed without sanction but cognizance had not yet been taken. Whether the trial court could grant liberty to the prosecution to file a fresh charge sheet after obtaining sanction.

Submissions/Arguments

State argued that sanction is required only before taking cognizance, not before filing charge sheet, and trial court could have deferred cognizance. Accused argued that charge sheet without sanction is void ab initio and court cannot grant liberty to file fresh charge sheet.

Ratio Decidendi

Sanction under Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 is a condition precedent for taking cognizance by the court, not for filing the charge sheet. The trial court erred in discharging the accused at the pre-cognizance stage for want of sanction; the proper course is to defer cognizance until sanction is obtained.

Judgment Excerpts

These two petitions are filed challenging the order dated 23.08.2017 passed by the Trial Court in allowing the discharge application filed by the accused No.1/petitioner and giving liberty to proceed further in accordance with law and to file charge sheet afresh after obtaining necessary sanction from the competent authority. The trial court erred in discharging the accused at the pre-cognizance stage for want of sanction; the proper course is to defer cognizance until sanction is obtained.

Procedural History

The Lokayukta police investigated a complaint against the accused and filed a charge sheet without prior sanction under Section 19 of the PC Act. The accused filed a discharge application, which was allowed by the trial court on 23.08.2017, discharging the accused but granting liberty to the prosecution to file a fresh charge sheet after obtaining sanction. Both the State and the accused filed revision petitions before the High Court against this order. The High Court heard the petitions and reserved orders on 12.07.2024, pronouncing the judgment on 26.07.2024.