Case Note & Summary
The applicant, Satish Balasaheb Kelgandre, was serving as a Quality Control Inspector in the office of the District Superintendent of Agricultural, Ahmednagar. Respondent No.3, Vinayak Dadasaheb Jondhale, was a Regional Manager of F.M.C. India Pvt. Ltd., a company manufacturing pesticides. The FIR alleged that the applicant demanded a bribe of Rs. 10,000 from Respondent No.3 for passing samples of the pesticide 'Dermet' manufactured by the company. The FIR was registered under Sections 7 and 15 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The applicant filed an application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.) seeking quashing of the FIR on the ground that no sanction under Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, was obtained before registration of the FIR and investigation. The court considered the issue of whether the FIR could be quashed for want of sanction. The applicant argued that being a public servant, sanction was mandatory. The State and Respondent No.3 opposed, contending that sanction is required only at the stage of taking cognizance, not at the stage of investigation. The court analyzed Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act and Section 197 Cr.P.C., and held that the requirement of sanction is a prerequisite for investigation and prosecution of a public servant. The court noted that the alleged demand was in discharge of official duty, and therefore, protection under Section 197 Cr.P.C. was attracted. The court quashed the FIR and all proceedings arising therefrom, allowing the application.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure Code - Quashing of FIR - Section 482 Cr.P.C. - Lack of Sanction - The applicant, a public servant, sought quashing of FIR for offences under Sections 7 and 15 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, on the ground that no sanction was obtained under Section 19 of the Act. The court held that sanction is a prerequisite for taking cognizance and investigation, and quashed the FIR as the applicant was a public servant and the alleged demand was in discharge of official duty. (Paras 2-10) B) Prevention of Corruption Act - Sanction for Prosecution - Section 19 - Mandatory Requirement - The court held that Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, mandates prior sanction for prosecution of a public servant. Since no sanction was obtained before registration of FIR and investigation, the proceedings were quashed. (Paras 5-10) C) Criminal Procedure Code - Protection to Public Servants - Section 197 Cr.P.C. - Applicability - The court observed that the alleged demand of bribe by the applicant was in connection with his official duty as a Quality Control Inspector, and therefore, protection under Section 197 Cr.P.C. was attracted, requiring sanction. (Paras 6-8)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the FIR and investigation against the applicant, a public servant, can be quashed for want of sanction under Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, and whether the applicant is entitled to protection under Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
Final Decision
The court allowed the application and quashed Crime No. II-176 of 2015 registered with Topkhana Police Station, Ahmednagar, and all proceedings arising therefrom.
Law Points
- Sanction for prosecution under Section 19 of Prevention of Corruption Act
- 1988 is mandatory
- Quashing of FIR under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for lack of sanction
- Applicability of Section 197 Cr.P.C. to public servants
