Case Note & Summary
The revision petition was filed by Pravinkumar Pitambar Deore, original accused no.1, challenging the order dated 17 May 2017 passed by the learned Special Judge under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, Nashik, in Special Case No.23 of 2016. The impugned order partly rejected the application filed by the revision petitioner seeking discharge from the case for offences punishable under Sections 7, 12, 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (PC Act). The trial court had discharged the revision petitioner for offences under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of the PC Act for want of sanction under Section 19 of the Act, but rejected his prayer for discharge from the offence under Section 12 of the PC Act, holding that no sanction is required for taking cognizance of that offence. The revision petitioner was aggrieved by the rejection of discharge for the offence under Section 12. The prosecution case was that the revision petitioner, a Deputy Municipal Commissioner, demanded and accepted illegal gratification for releasing arrears of salary, bonus, and increment for the suspension period of complainant Dr. Laxman Bagade and balance of pensionary benefits payable to another complainant Dr. Ravindra Dev. Accused no.2 Prakash Lakaria allegedly aided the revision petitioner in the demand and acceptance of illegal gratification. The learned advocate for the revision petitioner argued that since the revision petitioner was a public servant and the main culprit, and the trial court had already discharged him for the substantive offences due to lack of sanction, he should also be discharged for the offence under Section 12 as it is a minor offence. The court considered the provisions of Section 19 of the PC Act, which mandates sanction for taking cognizance of offences under Sections 7, 10, 11, 13, and 15, but does not include Section 12. The court held that Section 19 does not require sanction for taking cognizance of the offence under Section 12, which is an offence of abetment. The court further noted that the trial court had correctly discharged the revision petitioner for the substantive offences due to lack of sanction, but the rejection of discharge for the offence under Section 12 was proper. The court dismissed the revision petition, upholding the impugned order.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Prevention of Corruption Act - Sanction for Prosecution - Section 19 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - Requirement of sanction for taking cognizance of offences under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of the Act - The court held that sanction under Section 19 is mandatory for taking cognizance of substantive offences under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of the PC Act against a public servant, and the trial court rightly discharged the accused for those offences due to lack of sanction (Paras 1-2). B) Criminal Law - Prevention of Corruption Act - Abetment - Section 12 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - No sanction required for taking cognizance of offence under Section 12 - The court held that Section 19 of the PC Act does not require sanction for taking cognizance of the offence of abetment under Section 12, as the section only applies to offences under Sections 7, 10, 11, 13, and 15. Therefore, the trial court correctly rejected the discharge application for the offence under Section 12 (Paras 2-3).
Issue of Consideration
Whether sanction under Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 is required for taking cognizance of offence punishable under Section 12 of the said Act against a public servant
Final Decision
The revision petition is dismissed. The impugned order dated 17 May 2017 passed by the learned Special Judge under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, Nashik, in Special Case No.23 of 2016 is upheld.
Law Points
- Sanction under Section 19 of Prevention of Corruption Act
- 1988 is mandatory for taking cognizance of offences under Sections 7
- 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of the Act against a public servant
- but no such sanction is required for offence under Section 12 (abetment) of the Act
