Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

1. The Division Bench after hearing the aforesaid matter, delivered two different opinions on the question of requirement of sanction under Section 197 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (in short 'the Cr.P.C.'), and has referred the questions to be answered by the Full Bench. The basic issue relates to the requirement of sanction by the State Government under Section 197, Cr.P.C. for prosecuting a serving public servant under the provisions of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (in short 'the Act of 1988) as well as the Indian Penal Code, when sanction under Section 19 of the Act of 1988 has been granted by the Central Government. Whether in such case, a further sanction under Section 197, Cr.P.C. will also be necessary, and if so, the effect of the absence thereof.

60. Shri Misra submitted that prosecution under Section 120B IPC cannot proceed in the absence of sanction under Section 197 Cr.P.C. He submits that since all the acts were in discharge of her official duties, even for prosecution under Section 13 of the Act of 1988, sanction under Section 197 Cr.P.C. is necessary and merely on the basis of sanction granted under Section 19 of Act of 1988 by the Government of India, cognizance cannot be taken in these matters.

61. He also argued that Smt. Neera Yadav is a public servant and all the acts were in discharge of official duty. She was at the time of alleged commission of offence employed in connection with the affairs of Stale. Thus without sanction of State Government under Section 197 Cr.P.C., the cognizance taken by the Special Judge is evidently illegal. The observations made in Kali Charan Mohapatra v. State of Orissa as relied by Hon'ble Ashok Bhushan, J., according to him are not correct and are per in curium in view of law laid down in State of Punjab v. Baldev Singh , Lala Shri Bhagwan v. Ramchandra & A.R. Antulay v. R.S. Nayakk and Anr. .

63. Shri Sushil Kumar, learned Counsel on behalf of Shri Rajiv Kumar submitted that whatever action has been taken by Shri Rajiv Kumar as Deputy Chief Executive Officer of Noida, was taken with the approval of the Board, constituted for NOIDA, and in the absence of sanction under Section 197 Cr.P.C. no prosecution can be launched against Shri. Rajiv Kumar either under Section 120B IPC or under any provision of the Act of 1988. He argued that the question of sanction is a matter of jurisdiction of the trial court and even if ex facie the petitioner has committed an offence, he cannot be prosecuted unless and until sanction under Section 197 Cr.P.C. is obtained from the State Government. He also submits that the Central Government is not the competent authority to grant sanction in the present case. The order of the Central Government under Section 19 of the Act of 1988 is not in accordance with the law as the competent authority is State of U.P., which is the cadre controlling authority of Shri Rajiv Kumar., He submits that where the actions are in discharge of official duty, a public servant cannot be prosecuted under any provision of Act of 1988 or under IPC, unless sanction under Section 197 Cr.P.C. is taken from the State Government, In the absence thereof the entire proceedings are without jurisdiction.

107. Firstly, Section 197 of the Criminal Procedure Code nowhere suggests that the sanction required under the said provision is over and above and in addition to a sanction already provided under a Special Act.

108. Secondly, the contention of the learned Counsel is self-contradictory with reference to interpretation of Section 19 of the Act of 1988. Section 19 specifically requires previous sanction before cognizance of an offence punishable under Sections 7, 10, 11, 13 and 15 of Act of 1988 is taken. It does not talk of any further sanction under any other provision. Sub-section (3) of Section 19 of the said Act provides that in respect to certain irregularities etc. in the matter of sanction, no court shall interfere in certain circumstances affecting the proceedings under the Act of 1988. Taking an illustration, under Sections 7, 10, 11, 13 and 15 of the Act of 1988, any irregularity in sanction would not by itself vitiate the prosecution, by virtue of Sub-section (3), irrespective of anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973, yet can it be said that the aforesaid provision shall be rendered ineffective by application of Section 197 Cr.P.C. In our view, apparently, the answer would be in negative. Thus, the argument that, where the act is in discharge of official duties, for prosecution under the provisions of the Act of 1988, sanction Section 197 Cr.P.C. will also be required, is clearly fallacious. Any other interpretation would amount to adding certain words in Section 19 of Act of 1988 and making the Special Act subservient to Section 197 Cr.P.C., which is not permissible. When the provisions of statute are clear, categorical and unambiguous, the Court is not required to read anything more, or make an addition to it.