Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, an accused in Spl.C.C.No.266/2016 before the Special Court under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, filed an application under Section 227 read with Section 239 Cr.P.C. seeking discharge. The Special Court dismissed the application on 04.06.2018. Aggrieved, the petitioner filed a criminal revision petition under Section 397 read with Section 401 Cr.P.C. before the High Court of Karnataka. The petitioner argued that the prosecution lacked a valid sanction under Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, which is a mandatory prerequisite for taking cognizance. The respondent, represented by the Special Public Prosecutor for Lokayukta, opposed the revision. The High Court, after hearing both sides, held that the absence of a valid sanction order vitiates the prosecution. The court noted that the Special Court had erred in dismissing the discharge application without considering the mandatory requirement of sanction. Consequently, the High Court allowed the revision petition, set aside the order dated 04.06.2018, and discharged the accused. The judgment emphasizes that sanction under Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act is a condition precedent for prosecution, and without it, the accused is entitled to discharge.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure Code - Discharge - Section 227 read with Section 239 Cr.P.C. - Accused sought discharge on ground of lack of sanction under Section 19 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - Special Court dismissed application - Held that sanction is a condition precedent for taking cognizance and if sanction is invalid, the accused is entitled to discharge (Paras 1-3). B) Prevention of Corruption Act - Sanction for Prosecution - Section 19 - Mandatory requirement - Prosecution cannot proceed without valid sanction - In the present case, no sanction order was produced - Held that the Special Court's order dismissing discharge is unsustainable and liable to be set aside (Paras 2-3).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Special Court erred in dismissing the discharge application despite the absence of valid sanction for prosecution under Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988?
Final Decision
The High Court allowed the revision petition, set aside the order dated 04.06.2018 passed by the LXXVII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge and Special Judge, Bengaluru in Spl.C.C.No.266/2016, and discharged the accused.
Law Points
- Sanction for prosecution under Section 19 of Prevention of Corruption Act
- 1988 is mandatory
- Discharge under Section 227/239 Cr.P.C. when no prima facie case
- Revision under Section 397/401 Cr.P.C.
