Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, an Inspector of Police, was accused No.1 in Special Case No.5004/2017 pending before the III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ballary, sitting at Hospet, for offences punishable under Section 7 read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The case was registered on a complaint by CW1, leading to Crime No.2/2015 by the Karnataka Lokayukta Police Station, Hospet, on 3/9/2015. The allegation was that on 2/9/2015, the petitioner demanded and accepted a bribe. The petitioner filed a petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 seeking quashing of the entire proceedings on the ground that the learned Special Judge took cognizance of the offences and issued process without obtaining valid sanction for prosecution under Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The respondent-State opposed the petition, arguing that the sanction was not required or that the issue could be raised at trial. The High Court examined the provisions of Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, which mandates that no court shall take cognizance of an offence under the Act except with the previous sanction of the competent authority. The court noted that the record did not show any sanction order having been produced before the Special Judge at the time of taking cognizance. The court held that the requirement of sanction is a condition precedent and its absence renders the order taking cognizance and issuing process void ab initio. Relying on the principle that proceedings without sanction are a nullity, the court allowed the petition, quashed the order dated 03.07.2017 directing registration of the case and issuing process, and quashed the entire proceedings in S.C.No.5004/2017.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - Sanction for Prosecution - Section 19 - Mandatory Requirement - The court held that sanction under Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 is a condition precedent for taking cognizance of offences under the Act. In the absence of such sanction, the order taking cognizance and issuing process is void ab initio and liable to be quashed. (Paras 3-5) B) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 482 - Inherent Powers - Quashing of Proceedings - The High Court, exercising inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC, can quash proceedings that are void ab initio for want of sanction, as continuing such proceedings would be an abuse of process of court. (Para 5)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the proceedings against the petitioner for offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 can be quashed for want of valid sanction for prosecution under Section 19 of the Act?
Final Decision
The petition is allowed. The order dated 03.07.2017 passed in S.C.No.5004/2017 by the III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ballary, sitting at Hospet, directing registration of the case and issuing process against the petitioner, is quashed. Consequently, the entire proceedings in S.C.No.5004/2017 are quashed.
Law Points
- Sanction for prosecution under Section 19 of Prevention of Corruption Act
- 1988 is mandatory before taking cognizance
- order taking cognizance without sanction is void ab initio
- proceedings can be quashed under Section 482 CrPC
