Case Note & Summary
The case involves two criminal revision petitions: one filed by the State through Lokayukta Police, Gulbarga, and the other by the accused, Sadashiva S. Yelagod, both challenging an order dated 15.03.2008 passed by the Principal Sessions Judge, Gulbarga, in Special Case No.128/2007. The Special Judge had directed the Lokayukta Police to file a charge sheet only after obtaining necessary sanction to prosecute the accused under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The State sought quashing of this order, while the accused sought its setting aside. The High Court examined the issue of whether sanction under Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 is a prerequisite for filing a charge sheet or only for taking cognizance by the court. The court noted that Section 19 of the Act provides that no court shall take cognizance of an offence punishable under Sections 7, 10, 11, 13, and 15 of the Act except with the previous sanction of the competent authority. The court held that the requirement of sanction is a condition precedent for taking cognizance by the court and not for filing a charge sheet by the police. The police are entitled to investigate and file a charge sheet without prior sanction, and it is for the court to consider the sanction at the time of taking cognizance. The court also referred to Section 19(3) of the Act, which provides that no finding, sentence, or order passed by a special judge shall be reversed or altered by a court in appeal or revision on the ground of absence of or any defect in sanction unless failure of justice has been occasioned. Consequently, the High Court allowed the revision petition filed by the State and dismissed the revision petition filed by the accused, setting aside the impugned order of the Special Judge.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 397 read with Section 401 - Revision - Maintainability - The State filed revision against order of Special Judge directing filing of charge sheet only after obtaining sanction; accused also filed revision against same order. Both revisions were heard together. (Paras 1-3) B) Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - Section 19 - Sanction for Prosecution - Condition Precedent for Cognizance, Not for Filing Charge Sheet - The court held that sanction under Section 19 is a condition precedent for taking cognizance by the court and not for filing charge sheet by the police. The Special Judge erred in directing the police to obtain sanction before filing charge sheet. (Paras 4-6) C) Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - Section 19(3) - Bar on Reversal of Order for Want of Sanction - The provision states that no finding, sentence or order passed by a special judge shall be reversed or altered by a court in appeal or revision on the ground of absence of or any defect in sanction unless failure of justice has been occasioned. (Para 6)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the order of the Special Judge directing the Lokayukta Police to file charge sheet only after obtaining sanction for prosecution under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 is legally sustainable.
Final Decision
The High Court allowed the revision petition filed by the State (Crl.RP No.659/2008) and dismissed the revision petition filed by the accused (Crl.RP No.200072/2015). The impugned order dated 15.03.2008 passed by the Principal Sessions Judge, Gulbarga, in Special Case No.128/2007 was set aside.
Law Points
- Sanction for prosecution under Section 19 of Prevention of Corruption Act
- 1988 is a condition precedent for taking cognizance
- not for filing charge sheet
- Section 19 does not bar filing of charge sheet before sanction
- Section 19(3) provides that no finding
- sentence or order passed by a special judge shall be reversed or altered by a court in appeal or revision on the ground of absence of or any defect in sanction unless failure of justice has been occasioned.
