Case Note & Summary
The Petitioner, a member of the Indian Police Services and former Inspector General of Police of Goa, filed a criminal writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India before the High Court of Bombay at Goa. He sought to quash and set aside an order dated 8 January 2018 passed by the Additional Sessions Court, North Goa, Panaji, in Criminal Misc. Application No.87/2016, which directed the Anti-Corruption Branch to investigate a complaint against him under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC). The complaint was filed by Respondent No.3, who alleged that the Petitioner demanded and accepted illegal gratification to influence the investigation of a cheating case against one Shrikant Nayak. Respondent No.3 had recorded conversations with the Petitioner and lodged a complaint with the Anti-Corruption Branch on 11 August 2016 under Sections 7 and 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. When no action was taken, Respondent No.3 filed an application before the Additional Sessions Judge, who passed the impugned order directing investigation. The Petitioner challenged this order on the ground that no sanction under Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 had been obtained, which is mandatory before taking cognizance of offences against a public servant. The High Court analyzed the legal position and held that the order under Section 156(3) CrPC directing investigation against a public servant without prior sanction under Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act is illegal and cannot be sustained. The court further noted that the recorded conversation relied upon by Respondent No.3 was inadmissible as it violated Section 7 of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885, since it was obtained without the consent of the Petitioner. Consequently, the High Court allowed the petition, quashed the impugned order, and set aside any investigation or FIR registered pursuant thereto.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure Code - Investigation - Section 156(3) CrPC - Magistrate's Power - The Magistrate cannot order investigation under Section 156(3) CrPC against a public servant without prior sanction under Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, as such an order amounts to taking cognizance of the offence. Held that the order is illegal and liable to be quashed (Paras 8-10).
B) Prevention of Corruption Act - Sanction - Section 19 - Mandatory Requirement - Sanction under Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 is a condition precedent for taking cognizance of offences under Sections 7, 13, and 15 of the Act. The court cannot circumvent this requirement by ordering investigation under Section 156(3) CrPC. Held that the order without sanction is void (Paras 8-10).
C) Evidence Law - Admissibility - Illegally Obtained Evidence - Recording of conversation without the consent of the other party violates Section 7 of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885, and such evidence is inadmissible. The court cannot rely on such evidence to order investigation. Held that the conversation recording is not admissible (Para 11).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge directing investigation under Section 156(3) CrPC against the Petitioner, a public servant, without prior sanction under Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, is sustainable in law.
Final Decision
The High Court allowed the petition, quashed and set aside the order dated 8 January 2018 passed by the Additional Sessions Court, North Goa, Panaji, in Criminal Misc. Application No.87/2016, and set aside any investigation or FIR registered pursuant thereto.
Law Points
- Sanction under Section 19 of Prevention of Corruption Act
- 1988 is mandatory before taking cognizance or ordering investigation against a public servant
- Order for investigation under Section 156(3) CrPC without prior sanction is illegal
- Recording of conversation without consent violates Section 7 of Indian Telegraph Act
- 1885
- Evidence obtained in violation of law is inadmissible
Case Details
2018 LawText (BOM) (06) 209
Criminal Writ Petition No.13 of 2018
N.M. Jamdar, Prithviraj K. Chavan
Mr. S. D. Lotlikar, Senior Advocate with Mr. Jatin Sehgal, Ms. Devna Soni and Mr. Ryan Da Piedade Menezes, Advocates for the Petitioner; Mr. S. R. Rivankar, Public Prosecutor for Respondent Nos.1, 2 & 4; Mr. Nigel Da Costa Frias with Ms. L. Sawant, Advocates for Respondent No.3
The Officer-In-Charge, Anti-Corruption Branch, Directorate of Vigilance, Altinho, Panaji Goa; The Superintendent of Police, Anti Corruption Branch, Directorate of Vigilance, Altinho, Panaji Goa; Shri Munnalal Halwai; The State of Goa
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Criminal writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging an order passed by the Additional Sessions Court directing investigation under Section 156(3) CrPC against the Petitioner, a public servant, without prior sanction under Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
Remedy Sought
The Petitioner sought to quash and set aside the order dated 8 January 2018 passed by the Additional Sessions Court, North Goa, Panaji, in Criminal Misc. Application No.87/2016 and any investigation or FIR registered pursuant thereto.
Filing Reason
The Petitioner, a member of Indian Police Services and former Inspector General of Police of Goa, was aggrieved by the order directing investigation against him for alleged offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, without the mandatory sanction under Section 19 of the Act.
Previous Decisions
The Additional Sessions Court, North Goa, Panaji, passed an order on 8 January 2018 in Criminal Misc. Application No.87/2016 directing the Anti-Corruption Branch to investigate the complaint against the Petitioner under Section 156(3) CrPC.
Issues
Whether the order passed under Section 156(3) CrPC directing investigation against a public servant without prior sanction under Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, is sustainable in law.
Whether the recorded conversation relied upon by the complainant is admissible as evidence.
Submissions/Arguments
The Petitioner argued that the order directing investigation under Section 156(3) CrPC without prior sanction under Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, is illegal and liable to be quashed.
The Petitioner contended that the recorded conversation was obtained in violation of Section 7 of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885, and is inadmissible.
Respondent No.3 submitted that the order was valid and the investigation should proceed.
Ratio Decidendi
The court held that an order under Section 156(3) CrPC directing investigation against a public servant for offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, without prior sanction under Section 19 of the Act is illegal and cannot be sustained. The requirement of sanction is mandatory and cannot be circumvented by ordering investigation. Additionally, evidence obtained in violation of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885, is inadmissible.
Judgment Excerpts
The order was passed by the learned Magistrate on the application filed by the Respondent No.3.
The Petitioner is a member of Indian Police Services and had served as a Inspector General of Police of Goa.
The court held that the order under Section 156(3) CrPC directing investigation against a public servant without prior sanction under Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act is illegal.
Procedural History
Respondent No.3 filed a complaint on 3 August 2015 regarding cheating by Shrikant Nayak. He later met the Petitioner who allegedly demanded illegal gratification. On 11 August 2016, Respondent No.3 lodged a complaint with the Anti-Corruption Branch under Sections 7 and 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. When no action was taken, Respondent No.3 filed Criminal Misc. Application No.87/2016 before the Additional Sessions Court, North Goa, which on 8 January 2018 passed an order directing investigation under Section 156(3) CrPC. The Petitioner then filed Criminal Writ Petition No.13 of 2018 before the High Court of Bombay at Goa challenging this order.
Acts & Sections
- Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988: 7, 13, 15, 19
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: 156(3)
- Indian Telegraph Act, 1885: 7
- Constitution of India: 226
