Case Note & Summary
The State of Karnataka, through the Anti Corruption Bureau, Udupi District, filed two criminal revision petitions under Sections 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, challenging the order dated 24.02.2018 passed by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Udupi (sitting at Kundapura) in PCR No.1/2017 (Crime No.2/2017) and PCR No.1/2016 (Crime No.2/2016). The impugned order allowed an application filed by the respondents under Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, and dismissed the complaints. The respondents were Smt. Gayathri Nayak, an Assistant Commissioner in the Food and Civil Supplies Department and also Tahasildar, Kundapura, and Sri K. Gopala Poojary, an MLA. The State, represented by Sri Dinakara Shetty, Deputy Superintendent of Police, contended that the trial court erred in allowing the application under Section 19 at the pre-cognizance stage, as sanction for prosecution is not required at that stage. The High Court, after hearing the Special Public Prosecutor for the petitioner and the advocates for the respondents, held that the order of the trial court was erroneous. The court observed that Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, requires sanction only at the stage of taking cognizance of an offence, not at the stage of taking cognizance of a complaint. The trial court had prematurely dismissed the complaints without examining whether a prima facie case was made out. Consequently, the High Court allowed the revision petitions, set aside the impugned order, and restored the complaints to the file of the trial court for fresh consideration in accordance with law. The court directed the trial court to proceed with the complaints and pass appropriate orders after hearing both sides.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure Code - Revision - Sections 397 and 401 Cr.P.C. - The State filed revision petitions against the order of the Additional District and Sessions Judge allowing an application under Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and dismissing the complaint. The High Court held that the order was erroneous and set it aside, restoring the complaint to the file of the trial court for fresh consideration in accordance with law. (Paras 1-10) B) Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - Sanction for Prosecution - Section 19 - The court held that sanction under Section 19 is not required at the stage of taking cognizance of a complaint; it is required only at the stage of taking cognizance of an offence. The trial court's order allowing the application under Section 19 and dismissing the complaint was premature and set aside. (Paras 5-10)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge was justified in allowing the application under Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and dismissing the complaint at the pre-cognizance stage on the ground of lack of sanction?
Final Decision
The High Court allowed the criminal revision petitions, set aside the order dated 24.02.2018 passed by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Udupi (sitting at Kundapura) in PCR No.1/2017 and PCR No.1/2016, and restored the complaints to the file of the trial court for fresh consideration in accordance with law. The trial court was directed to proceed with the complaints and pass appropriate orders after hearing both sides.
Law Points
- Sanction under Section 19 of Prevention of Corruption Act
- 1988 is not required at the stage of taking cognizance of a complaint
- it is required only at the stage of taking cognizance of an offence
- the court can examine the complaint and proceed if prima facie case is made out
- the order of the Sessions Judge allowing the application under Section 19 and dismissing the complaint was erroneous and set aside.
