Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

9. The learned Amicus Curiae Sri.M.K.Sreegesh elaborately addressed arguments on all the relevant aspects, relying on the relevant precedents on the subject. I will consider the submissions of the learned Amicus Curiae in detail in the various stages of the consideration of the matter.

10. In Anilkumar and Ors. v. M.K. Aiyappa and Anr.7 the Two- Judge Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court considered the question of whether a Special Judge can refer a private complaint for investigation under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C without securing a valid sanction under Section 19 6 2021 (5) KHC 248 7 (2013) 10 SCC 705 Crl.M.C. NO. 4677 of 2022 of the P.C Act. In Anilkumar8, the Special Judge, after going through the private complaint, documents and hearing the complainant, referred the matter for investigation by the Deputy Superintendent of Police under Section 156(3) of Cr.PC. The order was challenged before the High Court. The High Court held that irrespective of whether the Court was acting at pre-cognizance stage or post-cognizance stage, if the complaint pertains to a public servant, the Special Judge is not empowered to take notice of the private complaint unless the same was accompanied by an order of sanction. The matter reached the Supreme Court. Following Maksud Saiyed v. Sate of Gujarat and Others9, State of U.P. v. Paras Nath Singh 10, 8 (2013) 10 SCC 705 9 (2008) 5 SCC 668 10(2009) 6 SCC 372 Crl.M.C. NO. 4677 of 2022 State of W.B and Another v. Mohd Kalid and Others 11 and Subramanian Swamy v. Manmohan Singh and Another12, the Supreme Court held thus:

11(1995) 1 SCC 684 12(2012) 3 SCC 64 Crl.M.C. NO. 4677 of 2022

11. The Supreme Court further held thus:

"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 and Subramanian Swamy cases."

cognizance stage and not a post- cognizance stage.

(d) The Special Judge referring case for investigation under Section 156(3) is at pre- cognizance stage.

(e) Dehors sanction under Section 19 of the P.C. Act the Magistrate cannot order investigation against a public servant while invoking powers under Section 156(3) Cr.PC.

13 (2013) 10 SCC 705 Crl.M.C. NO. 4677 of 2022

13. In L. Narayana Swamy v. State of Karnataka14, a similar question was considered by the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court referring to the judgments in Manharibhai Muljibhai Kakadia and Ors v. Shaileshbhai Mohanbhai Patel and Ors. 15, Anilkumar and Ors. v. M.K. Aiyappa and Anr. 16, State of W.B and Another v. Mohd Kalid and Others 17 and Subramanian Swamy v. Manmohan Singh and Another 18 held that an order directing further investigation under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C cannot be passed in the absence of valid sanction.

The Special Court is thus not prevented from conducting enquiry/inquiry at its own level while dealing with an application u/S. 156(3) Cr.P.C. but without assistance of the police. In this manner, the sweep, extent and object of Sec. 17- A remains unoffended. 10.5 Thus, the verdict of AnilKumar (supra) will not come in the way of trial Court while deciding an application u/S 156(3) Cr.P.C. for the reason of AnilKumar (supra) not being the law qua Sec. 17A and also that the legal bar contained therein restrains the Police but not the Court. Moreso, the decision in Crl.M.C. NO. 4677 of 2022 AnilKumar (supra) has been doubted by Apex Court in Manju Surana (supra) inter alia for the reason of AnilKumar (supra) failing to consider three - Judge Bench verdict in R.R. Chari Vs. State of U.P., (AIR 1951 SC 207) wherein the Apex Court profitably quoted its earlier verdict in Subramanian Swamy Vs. Monmohan Singh and another, 2012 (3) SCC 64. Pertinently Subramanian Swamy (supra) at para 35, extracts the Three Judge Bench decision in R.R. Chari (supra) which is reproduced as follows:-