Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Dr. S. Krishnamurthy, a retired IPS officer, filed a criminal petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.) seeking quashing of FIR No.95/2012 dated 27.12.2012 and the order dated 05.11.2013 passed by the learned Special Judge, XXIII Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bangalore, taking cognizance for offences punishable under Sections 13(1)(c)(d)(ii) read with 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (the Act). The petitioner appeared in person and argued that the cognizance order was illegal as there was no valid sanction under Section 19 of the Act. The respondent No.1, State of Karnataka represented by Lokayukta Police, was represented by a Special Public Prosecutor, and respondent No.2, Sri C. Dinakar, another retired IPS officer, appeared in person. The court examined the sanction order and found that it did not show any application of mind by the sanctioning authority. The court noted that the sanction order was a cyclostyled format with blanks filled in, and there was no indication that the sanctioning authority had considered the material placed before it. The court held that sanction under Section 19 of the Act is a condition precedent for taking cognizance, and without a valid sanction, the cognizance order is illegal. Consequently, the court allowed the petition, quashed the FIR and the cognizance order, and discharged the petitioner.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure Code - Quashing of FIR - Section 482 Cr.P.C. - Abuse of Process - The petitioner sought quashing of FIR and cognizance order on ground of lack of valid sanction under Section 19 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The court held that the sanction order was not valid as it did not show application of mind by the sanctioning authority. (Paras 1-10) B) Prevention of Corruption Act - Sanction for Prosecution - Section 19 - Mandatory Requirement - The court held that sanction under Section 19 is a condition precedent for taking cognizance of offences under the Act. The sanction order must reflect due application of mind and consideration of material. (Paras 5-8) C) Criminal Procedure Code - Cognizance - Validity - The court held that taking cognizance without a valid sanction is illegal and the proceedings are liable to be quashed. (Paras 9-10)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the order taking cognizance for offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 against the petitioner without a valid sanction under Section 19 of the Act is sustainable in law.
Final Decision
The petition is allowed. The FIR No.95/2012 dated 27.12.2012 and the order dated 05.11.2013 taking cognizance for offences under Sections 13(1)(c)(d)(ii) r/w 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 are quashed. The petitioner is discharged.
Law Points
- Sanction for prosecution under Section 19 of Prevention of Corruption Act is mandatory
- Cognizance without valid sanction is illegal
- Quashing of FIR under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for lack of sanction
