Case Note & Summary
The case involves two criminal revision petitions: one filed by the State through Lokayukta Police, Gulbarga (Crl.RP No.659/2008) and another by the accused, Sadashiva S. Yelagod (Crl.RP No.200072/2015), both challenging the order dated 15.03.2008 passed by the Principal Sessions Judge, Gulbarga, in Special Case No.128/2007. The accused was a Civil Assistant Engineer and was investigated by the Lokayukta police for alleged offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The trial court, while rejecting the charge sheet filed by the police, directed them to file a fresh charge sheet only after obtaining necessary sanction for prosecution from the competent authority. The State challenged this order on the ground that sanction is not a prerequisite for filing a charge sheet, while the accused sought to quash the entire proceedings. The High Court examined the provisions of Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, and Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. It held that sanction for prosecution is a condition precedent for the court to take cognizance of the offence, not for the police to file a charge sheet. The police have the right to file a charge sheet upon completion of investigation, and the court can consider the question of sanction at the stage of taking cognizance. The trial court's order directing the police to obtain sanction before filing charge sheet was held to be without jurisdiction and passed without hearing the accused. Consequently, the High Court allowed the State's revision petition and set aside the impugned order, while dismissing the accused's revision petition as it was found to be without merit. The trial court was directed to proceed with the case in accordance with law, including considering the sanction aspect at the appropriate stage.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure Code - Revision - Section 397 r/w 401 Cr.P.C. - Order directing filing of charge sheet after obtaining sanction - The trial court directed the Lokayukta police to file charge sheet only after obtaining sanction for prosecution. The High Court held that sanction is a condition precedent for taking cognizance, not for filing charge sheet. The order was set aside as it was passed without jurisdiction and without hearing the accused. (Paras 1-10) B) Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - Sanction for Prosecution - Section 19 - Condition Precedent for Cognizance - The court clarified that sanction under Section 19 is required before the court takes cognizance of the offence, not before the police file a charge sheet. The police can file a charge sheet without prior sanction, and the court can then consider sanction at the stage of taking cognizance. (Paras 5-10) C) Criminal Procedure Code - Investigation - Filing of Charge Sheet - Section 173 Cr.P.C. - The police have the right to file a charge sheet upon completion of investigation. The trial court cannot direct the police to obtain sanction before filing charge sheet, as that would interfere with the investigation process. (Paras 5-10)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the trial court can direct the Lokayukta police to file a charge sheet only after obtaining sanction for prosecution under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, and whether such an order is sustainable in law.
Final Decision
The High Court allowed the revision petition filed by the State (Crl.RP No.659/2008) and set aside the order dated 15.03.2008 passed by the Principal Sessions Judge, Gulbarga, in Special Case No.128/2007. The revision petition filed by the accused (Crl.RP No.200072/2015) was dismissed. The trial court was directed to proceed with the case in accordance with law.
Law Points
- Sanction for prosecution is a condition precedent for taking cognizance
- not for filing charge sheet
- Filing of charge sheet without prior sanction is permissible
- Court can direct investigation to obtain sanction before taking cognizance
