Case Note & Summary
The matter arose from a private complaint filed by the respondent against seven officers of the Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB), Bengaluru, alleging offences under the Indian Penal Code and Section 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The complaint related to a search and seizure operation conducted at the respondent’s premises during investigation of Crime No. 55 of 2021 registered by the ACB. The respondent contended that the search was illegal and the officers demanded money to close the case. The Special Judge for Prevention of Corruption Act took cognizance of the offences on 30.05.2024 and directed issuance of summons to the petitioners without any sanction for prosecution. The petitioners challenged this order before the High Court under Section 482 CrPC, contending that all alleged acts were performed in discharge of their official duties as police officers and, therefore, cognizance could not be taken without a sanction under Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act and Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The respondent argued that the acts constituted forgery, extortion, and house trespass, which are not part of official duty, and hence sanction was not required. The High Court examined the sole question whether cognizance without sanction was valid. After noting the sequence of events—registration of crime, obtaining of search warrant, quashing of FIR against the respondent by a coordinate Bench, and filing of private complaint—the court held that the alleged acts were undeniably done in the course of official duties. The court emphasized that under Section 19 of the PC Act and Section 197 CrPC, sanction is a prerequisite for taking cognizance against public servants for acts done in discharge of official functions. Consequently, the order taking cognizance was quashed, and the petition was allowed, while granting liberty to the respondent to approach the Special Judge afresh after procuring the requisite sanction.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure - Cognizance of Offences - Sanction for Prosecution - Section 19, Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988; Section 197, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - The petitioners, officers of the Anti-Corruption Bureau, faced a private complaint alleging commission of offences under the Indian Penal Code and Section 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act during the course of investigation of Crime No.55 of 2021. The Special Judge took cognizance and ordered issuance of process without any prior sanction for prosecution. The High Court held that where the acts were allegedly done in discharge of official duties, cognizance without sanction under Section 19 of the PC Act and Section 197 CrPC is impermissible. Held, the order of taking cognizance dated 30.05.2024 is quashed, reserving liberty to the complainant to proceed after obtaining necessary sanction. (Paras 8-11).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the concerned Court could have taken cognizance of the offences punishable under the penal provisions of the IPC and under the Act, without a sanction under Section 19 of the Act or under Section 197 of the Cr.P.C., being placed before it?
Final Decision
The petition was allowed. The order dated 30.05.2024 taking cognizance and directing issuance of process was quashed. Liberty was reserved to the respondent to approach the Special Judge after obtaining sanction under Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
Law Points
- cognizance of offences against public servants for acts done in discharge of official duties requires prior sanction under Section 19 of Prevention of Corruption Act
- 1988 and Section 197 of Code of Criminal Procedure
- 1973
