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 an 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 under Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (PC Act) and restored the complaint. The respondents in the petitions were Smt. Gayathri Nayak, an Assistant Commissioner in the Food and Civil Supplies Department, and Sri K. Gopala Poojary, a Member of the Legislative Assembly. The State, represented by Sri Dinakara Shetty, Deputy Superintendent of Police, argued that the learned Sessions Judge erred in allowing the application under Section 19 of the PC Act, as the requirement of sanction for prosecution under that section is not at the stage of taking cognizance but at the stage of taking cognizance of the offence. The court heard Sri Venkatesh P. Dalwai, learned Special Public Prosecutor for the petitioner, and the advocates for the respondents. The High Court held that the order allowing the application under Section 19 of the PC Act was not sustainable, as the sanction for prosecution is not required at the stage of taking cognizance. The court set aside the impugned order and restored the complaint to the file of the learned Sessions Judge to proceed in accordance with law. The revision petitions were allowed.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 397 and 401 - Revision - Maintainability - The revision petitions filed by the State under Section 397 and 401 Cr.P.C. challenging the order allowing discharge under Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 are maintainable as the order is interlocutory in nature but affects the rights of the parties. (Paras 1-3) B) Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - Section 19 - Sanction for Prosecution - Stage of Cognizance - The requirement of sanction under Section 19 of the PC Act is not at the stage of taking cognizance but at the stage of taking cognizance of the offence. The court can proceed with the complaint if there is prima facie material. The order allowing discharge under Section 19 was set aside. (Paras 2-4)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the order passed by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge allowing the application under Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and restoring the complaint is correct and legal?
Final Decision
The revision petitions are allowed. The impugned 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 is set aside. The complaint is restored to the file of the learned Sessions Judge to proceed in accordance with law.
Law Points
- Sanction for prosecution under Section 19 of Prevention of Corruption Act
- 1988 is not required at the stage of taking cognizance
- but only at the stage of taking cognizance of the offence
- and the court can proceed with the complaint if there is prima facie material
- Revision petition maintainable under Section 397 and 401 Cr.P.C.
- Order allowing discharge under Section 19 PC Act set aside
