Case Note & Summary
The case involves two criminal revision petitions filed by the petitioners (accused No.2, 3 and 4) challenging the order dated 13.4.2012 passed by the Special Judge, Prevention of Corruption Act, Bangalore Urban, in PCR No.25/2011, whereby the Special Judge took cognizance of the offence and issued summons to them. The second respondent (complainant) had filed a private complaint against four accused persons, including the petitioners. The first accused was the former Deputy Chief Minister/Chief Minister of Karnataka. The petitioners, who were public servants, contended that the Special Judge could not take cognizance without a valid sanction under Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) and Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (PC Act). The court examined the complaint and found that the allegations pertained to acts done in discharge of official duty. The court held that for prosecution of public servants for offences under the PC Act, previous sanction is mandatory. Since no such sanction was obtained, the order taking cognizance was unsustainable. The court allowed the revision petitions, set aside the order of cognizance, and dismissed the complaint against the petitioners. The court also noted that the complaint did not disclose any act beyond the scope of official duty, and the Special Judge had erred in taking cognizance without considering the requirement of sanction.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure Code - Sanction for Prosecution - Section 197 CrPC - Public Servants - The court considered whether cognizance could be taken against public servants without prior sanction. Held that for acts done in discharge of official duty, sanction under Section 197 CrPC is mandatory. The Special Judge's order taking cognizance was quashed as the complaint did not disclose any act beyond official duty. (Paras 1-10) B) Prevention of Corruption Act - Sanction for Prosecution - Section 19 PC Act - Public Servants - The court examined the requirement of sanction under Section 19 of the PC Act for prosecution of public servants for offences under the Act. Held that no court can take cognizance of an offence under the PC Act without previous sanction. The order of cognizance was set aside for lack of sanction. (Paras 1-10) C) Criminal Procedure Code - Cognizance of Offence - Private Complaint - The court analyzed the validity of the Special Judge's order taking cognizance in a private complaint against public servants. Held that the order was unsustainable as the complaint did not make out a prima facie case of corruption beyond official duty, and the mandatory sanction was absent. (Paras 1-10)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Special Judge could take cognizance of the offence and issue summons to the petitioners (accused No.2, 3 and 4) without there being a valid sanction for prosecution under Section 197 of CrPC and Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
Final Decision
The court allowed the revision petitions, set aside the order dated 13.4.2012 passed by the Special Judge, Prevention of Corruption Act, Bangalore Urban in PCR No.25/2011 taking cognizance and issuing summons to the petitioners, and dismissed the complaint against the petitioners.
Law Points
- Sanction for prosecution of public servants
- Section 197 CrPC
- Section 19 Prevention of Corruption Act
- 1988
- Cognizance of offence
- Private complaint against public servants
- Discharge of official duty
