Date of Judgement:
1 October 2013
Bench:
Justice K.S. Radhakrishnan
Justice Pinaki Chandra Ghose
Parties:
Appellant - Anil Kumar & Ors.
Respondent - M.K. Aiyappa & Anr.
Subject
This case is a landmark judgement by the Supreme Court wherein it was pronounced that a Magistrate/Special Judge is not justified in referring a case against a public servant for police investigation under Section 156(3) CrPC without valid sanction.
Overview
- In this case, the appellants made a private complaint to the Additional City Civil Court and Special Judge (prevention of corruption) under Section 200 of the CrPC. They complained that the respondent along with other officers had restored valuable land in favour of a private person.
- Upon this, the Special Judge referred the matter to the Deputy Superintendent of Police for investigation, invoking its power under Section 156(3) of theCrPC. Aggrieved by this, the respondent had approached the High Court of Karnataka.
- The High Court said that the Special Court had acted beyond its jurisdiction because they entertained a case against a public servant without the government sanction, which is essential. Therefore, the High Court quashed the order of investigation passed by the Special Judge. Aggrieved by the same, the appellants approached the Supreme Court.
- The Counsel for the appellant said that if the High Courts' interpretation is accepted, then Section 19(3) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 will become futile. He also said that the requirement of “previous sanction” under Section 19(1) of the 1988 Act is merely directory and not mandatory. To support this they relied on the judgement P. V. Narasimha Rao v. State (CBI/SPE) (1998) 4 SCC 626.
- The learned Counsel also believed that an error was committed by the High Court. According to him, an order for investigation under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. would not amount to taking cognizance of the offence. It is merely for the purpose of investigation.
- On the other hand, the learned counsel for respondents made a reference to Subramanian Swamy v. Manmohan Singh and another (2012). He said that a sanction is imperative in order to protect a public servant acting in good faith, from unnecessary harassment. He submitted that application of mind by the Magistrate before exercising power under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. is indispensable.
Issues
- The question before the Court was whether the Magistrate has the power to direct investigation against a public servant under Section 156(3) without a valid government sanction order?
- Does the Magistrate's order to conduct an investigation under Section 156(3) amount to taking cognizance of the offence?
- Is the requirement of sanction a pre-condition even at a pre-cognizance stage?
Legal Provisions
- Section 200 of the CrPC – Examination of the complainant by the Magistrate.
- Section 156(3) of the CrPC – Power of Magistrate to order a police investigation.
- Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act,1988 – Previous sanction necessary to prosecute a public servant acting under duty.
Judgement Analysis
- Firstly, the Supreme Court made it very clear that application of mind by the Magistrate before passing such order is essential. Also, a Magistrate cannot use the power under Section 156(3) to prosecute a public servant without a valid sanction order by the Government.
- Upon the question of cognizance, the Court reiterated that taking cognizance is different from issuance of process. Hence, when the Special Judge made an order for an investigation, he had obviously not taken cognizance of that offence.
- The Court also rejected the contention of the appellant that a sanction is only procedural in nature and not mandatory. For this, they pointed out the object of Section 19 of the 1988 Act and highlighted the use of words like ‘shall’ to convey the intention of the legislation.
- Hence, the appeal made by the appellants was dismissed by the honorable Court on the grounds that they lacked merit. The Court also asserted that there is no such error in the judgement passed by the High Court of Karnataka.
Conclusion
This judgement of the Supreme Court established that a sanction is of paramount importance to protect a public servant doing his duty. It also ruled that if a sanction is required, and the Court proceeds against a public servant without it, then such a public servant can raise the issue of jurisdiction. Be that as it may, later in a 2016 judgement, it was held that, when the alleged misconduct is in some different capacity than the one which is held by the public servant at the time of taking cognizance, then a sanction is not mandatory.
Click here to download the original copy of the judgement
