Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

9. On the other hand, Sri Manish Goyal, learned Additional Advocate General, State of U.P. has submitted that the Division Bench of this Court passed the judgment in Jail Appeal No. 8326 of 2007 (Mohd. Waris @ Raza Vs. State) on 05.08.2019 in which observation is made that in the present case the prosecution did not applied mind under Section 196 Cr.P.C and sanction was not accorded by the State. It has been further stated that a bare perusal of Section 465 Cr.P.C. shows that if there is no complete "omission" of sanction, then Section 465 Cr.P.C. will not come into picture and will not help prosecution. In absence of sanction by the Competent Authority under Section 196 Cr.P.C. it will be a serious flaw and an illegality and would vitiate the entire proceedings. Since, in the present case, sanction required Section 196 Cr.P.C. is wholly absent, therefore, the entire trial becomes void ab initio. Sri Goyal has further stated that in pursuance of the Division Bench order dated 05.08.2019 the State Authority applied its mind and the sanction has been accorded vide Government order dated 31.07.2020. The Court proceeded in absence of the sanction order of the Competent Authority and retrial is taking in accordance with law. It has been further submitted by Sri Goyal that sanction order dated 31.07.2020 has not been challenged by counsel for the applicant, therefore, the consequence has followed and the trial has re-started.

11. Section 196 I.P.C. is absolute and unequivocal which contemplates that prior sanction form the Central Government or State Government for taking cognizance for the offence punishable under Chapter-VI I.P.C. is pre-condition. The Division Bench in the Jail Appeal (supra) decided on 05.08.2019 has made observation to that effect. Paragraph no.s 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 39, 40, 45 are quoted herein below:-

"33. A perusal of Section 196 Cr.P.C., clearly shows that it contemplates a prior sanction from Central Government or State Government before cognizance is taken of any offence punishable under Chapter-VI I.P.C. Therefore, apparently, it cannot be disputed and learned AGA has also fairly stated that as per requirement of Section 196 Cr.P.C., no cognizance could have been taken of offence punishable under Chapter-VI I.P.C. unless prior sanction from Central Government or State Government is obtained.
35. Proceeding further now we have to examine, "whether requirement of ''prior sanction' under Section 196 Cr.P.C. is mandatory" and secondly, if no such issue was raised before Magistrate, who committed proceedings to Court of Sessions/Trial Court, whether it will stop appellants from raising issue for the first time in appeal, or flaw is so inherent it goes to the root of the matter and even in appeal, it can be taken for the first time and may vitiates Trial and conviction.
36. The object of Section 196 Cr.P.C. is to ensure prosecution after due consideration by appropriate authority so that frivolous or needless prosecution is avoided. To appreciate the nature of "sanction" contemplated under Section 196 Cr.P.C., in correct perspective, it would be appropriate to bear in mind and examine Section 465 Cr.P.C., which reads as under :-
(2) In determining whether any error, omission or irregularity in any proceeding under this Code, or any error, or irregularity in any sanction for the prosecution has occasioned a failure of justice, the Court shall have regard to the fact whether the objection could and should have been raised at an earlier stage in the proceedings.

(Emphasis added)

37. A perusal of Section 465 Cr.P.C. shows that it runs into two parts; (i) "on any error, omission or irregularity", and three words have been used and it is said that the same will not justify setting aside of conviction in appeal or revision etc. but with reference to "sanction" only two words "error or irregularity" have been used and the word "omission" has not been mentioned. Meaning thereby, in the cases where sanction is required, if there is an error or irregularity in the "sanction", then conviction or finding will not be reversed in appeal or revision. It contemplates that sanction is there but there is some error or irregularity in granting sanction. If there is a complete "omission" of sanction, then in our view, Section 465 Cr.P.C. will not come into picture and will not help prosecution. It, therefore, leads to irrestible inference that if there is no sanction, whatsoever, by competent authority as contemplated in Section 196 Cr.P.C., it will be a serious flaw and an illegality and would vitiate the entire proceedings.