Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

5. Later, the Trial Court in terms of the order dated 22.12.2017 in PCR No.2/2012, took cognizance of the offences against the accused / petitioners' and in the course of doing so, held that in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Subramanian Swamy v. Manmohan Singh and another [2012 (3) SCC 64] held that if official superiors of the accused did not grant sanction within four months from the date of request, the sanction is deemed to have been granted. Consequently, it held that there was sufficient material to try the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 13(1)(c) and 13(2) of the P.C. Act and Sections 120B, 167 and 420 of IPC and directed the office to register the case against the accused / petitioners' herein in Register No.III and issued process to the accused. Pursuant to the said

- 11 -

NC: 2023:KHC:37596 down punishment of reduction of two increments with cumulative effect. He, therefore, submits that the instant private complaint is nothing but an action in vengeance by the complainant after he retired from service.

8. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent No.2 - complainant submitted that the complainant had made a request for grant of sanction to prosecute the petitioners on 13.08.2012 and since the request was not granted within four months, a private complaint was lodged on 26.12.2012 which is after a lapse of four months as mandated by the Hon'ble Apex Court of India in the case of Subramanian Swamy, supra. He further submitted that the Trial Court after considering the material on record found a prima facie case to prosecute the petitioners for the offences punishable under Sections 13(1)(c) and 13(2) of P.C. Act read with Section 120B, 167, 420 of IPC. He submits that the Trial Court had gone through the documents placed on record which clearly disclosed that the accused Nos.1 to 3 had misappropriated 

The    claim    of     the     learned       counsel       for     the

petitioners/accused    that    the      order refusing     to    grant

sanction prior to the Trial Court taking cognizance, came in the way of taking cognizance, cannot be accepted for the simple reason that the request for sanction was made on 13.08.2012 by the concerned authority and four months time prescribed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Subramanian Swamy, supra, expired on 13.12.2012 and the complaint was itself filed on 26.12.2012. Therefore, it was deemed that as on the date of filing the private complaint, there was a deemed sanction to prosecute the petitioners/accused. In that view of the matter, there is no error committed by the Trial Court in taking cognizance of the offence by the petitioners/accused.