Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

iv) The sanction for prosecution as required by Section 19 of the P.C. Act is a condition precedent to entertain a private complaint alleging the offences under the P.C. Act and since no such sanction accorded by the competent authority was produced, the learned Special Judge had no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint and refer the same to the police for investigation.

6) Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the Respondents contended that a private complaint alleging the offence punishable under Section 13(1)(e) by a private individual is maintainable as laid down by the Apex Court in the Constitutional Bench decision in the case of A.R. Antulay-Vs-R.S.Nayak [AIR 1984 SC 718] which has been reiterated in the case of Subramanian Swamy Vs. Manmohan Singh [2012(3) SCC 64]. It was further contended that perusal of the impugned order clearly indicates application of mind by the learned Special Judge to the allegations made in the complaint and his satisfaction about the prima facie case having been made- out for directing investigation. Therefore, the impugned order does not suffer from any illegality or irregularity. They further contended that though the 2nd proviso to Section 17 mandates that the investigation for an offence referred to under Section 13(1)(e) of the P.C. Act shall be undertaken only pursuant an order passed by a Police Officer not below the rank of Superintendent of Police, that does not over-ride the power of the Court to direct investigation. It is further contended that since the learned Special Judge has directed investigation to be done by the Superintendent of Police, Karnataka Lokayuktha, the protection, if any, afforded to the public servant by virtue of 2nd proviso to Section 17 has not been in any way defeated. It was further contended that the requirement of sanction as provided by Section 19 of the P.C. Act is only at the stage of the Court taking cognizance, and there is no bar or prohibition for the Special Court to entertain the complaint and direct investigation. On the issue of sanction they contended that, specific allegations have been made in the complaint to the effect that since the allegations regarding disproportionate assets relate to the period while the petitioner herein was severing as a Minister and since he completed his term as a Minister in the year 2004, question of sanction does not arise, therefore, in the light of the said specific averments and in the light of the ratio laid-down by the Apex Court in the case of Lalu Prasad alias Lalu Prasad Yadhav Vs. State of Bihar though CBI (AHD) Patna reported in 2007(1) SCC 49, question of sanction does not arise. Therefore, the learned counsels appearing for the respondents sought for dismissal of the petition.

Regarding Point No.1:

8) This question of law has been answered in the affirmative by the Apex Court in A.R. Antulay's case (supra). Following the Constitutional Bench decision in A.R. Antulay's case, recently the Apex Court in Subramanian Swamy's case referred to supra, has observed thus in Para-28, which reads as under:-

"28. There is no provision either in the 1988 Act or the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.) which bars a citizen from filing a complaint for prosecution of a public servant who is alleged to have committed an offence. Therefore, the argument of the learned Attorney General that the appellant cannot file a complaint for prosecuting respondent No.2 merits rejection. A similar argument was negatived by the Constitution Bench in A.R. Antulay -Vs-. R.S.Nayak".

9) After referring to the observations of the Apex Court in A.R. Antulay's case (supra), Their Lordships in Subramanian Swamy's case at Para-33 have observed thus:-

"33. In view of the aforesaid judgment of the Constitution Bench in Antulay's Case, it must be held that the appellant has the right to file a complaint for prosecution of respondent No.2 in respect of the offences allegedly committed by him under the 1988 Act".

Therefore, in the light of the law laid-down in the aforesaid decisions, I find no substance in the argument canvassed regarding the locus-standi of the complainant to file a private complaint. Hence, I answer Point No.1 in the affirmative.

(c). Of course, apparent reading of section would indicate that the requirement of previous sanction is contemplated at the time of the Court taking cognizance. In the case on hand, of course, the learned Special Judge has not taken cognizance since he chose to refer the complaint for investigation in exercise of power under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. Therefore, the impugned order is the one passed during pre-cognizance period.

30) In Subramanian Swamy's case referred to supra, the Apex Court while rejecting the argument of learned Attorney General that the question of granting sanction for prosecution of a public servant charged with an offence under the 1988 Act arises only at the stage of taking cognizance and not before, has ruled thus in Paragraphs-34 and 64: