Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

21. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellants raised the contention that the requirement of sanction is only procedural in nature and hence, directory or else Section 19(3) would be rendered otiose. We find it difficult to accept that contention. Sub-section (3) of Section 19 has an object to achieve, which applies in circumstances where a Special Judge has already rendered a finding, sentence or order. In such an event, it shall not be reversed or altered by a court in appeal, confirmation or revision on the ground of absence of sanction. That does not mean that the requirement to obtain sanction is not a mandatory requirement. Once it is noticed that there was no previous sanction, as already indicated in various judgments referred to hereinabove, the Magistrate cannot order investigation against a public servant while invoking powers under Section 156(3) CrPC. The above legal position, as already indicated, has been clearly spelt out in Paras Nath Singh [State of U.P. v. Paras Nath Singh, (2009) 6 SCC 372 : (2009) 2 SCC (L&S) 200] and Subramanian Swamy [Subramanian Swamy v. Manmohan Singh, (2012) 3 SCC 64 : (2012) 1 SCC (Cri) 1041 : (2012) 2 SCC (L&S) 666] cases."

A further contention which wasadvanced on behalf of the petitioner is that even if sanction is required the same can be granted at any stage and for the purpose of consideration of an application under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure sanction is not at all required, as it has been settled that sanction is a consideration prior to taking cognizance of the offence and not at the stage when the investigation commences. To that effect petitioner relied upon the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Manju Surana (supra) and the decisions relied upon by the Hon'ble Supreme Court being R.R. Chari (supra), Gopal Das Sindhi & Ors. (supra), Jamuna Singh & Ors. (supra), Nirmaljit Singh Hoon (supra), Devarapalli Lakshminarayana Reddy & Ors. (supra), Tula Ram & Ors. -Vs. - Kishore Singh, AIR 1977 SC 2401; Srinivas Gundluri & Ors. -Vs. -Sepco Electric Power Construction Corporation & Ors., (2010) 8 SCC 206 and Subramanian Swamy (supra) to arrive at its finding of a divergent view with the previous judgments being Anil Kumar (supra) and L. Narayana Swamy (supra).

14. In State of W.B. v. Mohd. Khalid [(1995) 1 SCC 684 : 1995 SCC (Cri) 266] , this Court has observed as follows:

"13. It is necessary to mention here that taking cognizance of an offence is not the same thing as issuance of process. Cognizance is taken at the initial stage when the Magistrate applies his judicial mind to the facts mentioned in a complaint or to a police report or upon information received from any other person that an offence has been committed. The issuance of process is at a subsequent stage when after considering the material placed before it the court decides to proceed against the offenders against whom a prima facie case is made out." [Ed.: As considered in State of Karnataka v. Pastor P. Raju, (2006) 6 SCC 728, 734, para 13 : (2006) 3 SCC (Cri) 179.] The meaning of the said expression was also considered by this Court in Subramanian Swamy case [(2012) 3 SCC 64 : (2012) 1 SCC (Cri) 1041 : (2012) 2 SCC (L&S) 666] .

21. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellants raised the contention that the requirement of sanction is only procedural in nature and hence, directory or else Section 19(3) would be rendered otiose. We find it difficult to accept that contention. Sub-section (3) of Section 19 has an object to achieve, which applies in circumstances where a Special Judge has already rendered a finding, sentence or order. In such an event, it shall not be reversed or altered by a court in appeal, confirmation or revision on the ground of absence of sanction. That does not mean that the requirement to obtain sanction is not a mandatory requirement. Once it is noticed that there was no previous sanction, as already indicated in various judgments referred to hereinabove, the Magistrate cannot order investigation against a public servant while invoking powers under Section 156(3) CrPC. The above legal position, as already indicated, has been clearly spelt out in Paras Nath Singh [(2009) 6 SCC 372 : (2009) 2 SCC (L&S) 200] and Subramanian Swamy [(2012) 3 SCC 64 : (2012) 1 SCC (Cri) 1041 : (2012) 2 SCC (L&S) 666] cases."