Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

5. Besides this, submission was advanced to the effect that the complaint filed without an order of sanction for prosecuting the Petitioner is liable to be quashed. In support of his submission, the learned senior counsel for the Petitioner placed reliance on the decision of the Honourable Supreme Court rendered in the case of Dr.Subramanian Swamy Vs. Manmohan Singh and another (2012-3-SCC-64), wherein the contention of the learned Attorney General that an order granting sanction is not required to be filed along with a complaint in connection with a Prosecution under Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act was turned down on the ground that the said submission is contrary to the settled law laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court in various decisions.

11. Their Lordships, in a recent decision reported in Dr.Subramanian Swamy Vs. Manmohan Singh and another (2012-3-SCC-64), after referring to the observations of the Honourable Supreme Court made in AIR-1984- SC-718 (A.R.Antulay Vs. Ramdas Srinivas Nayak and another), have observed thus:-

"33. In view of the aforesaid judgement 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 2nd Respondent in respect of the offences allegedly committed by him under the 1988 Act."

28. Now coming to the contention raised by the learned senior counsel that the complaint filed by the 2nd Respondent not accompanied by accord of sanction is not valid in law and the entire proceedings are liable to be quashed, it requires serious consideration in the light of the decision of the Honourable Supreme Court rendered in the case of Dr.Subramanian Swamy Vs. Manmohan Singh and another (2012-3-SCC-64).

29. Section 19(1) of Prevention of Corruption Act directs that no court shall take cognizance of the offence punishable under Sections 7, 10, 11, 13 and 15 of Act alleged to have been committed by the public servant, except with the previous sanction of the authorities enumerated in clauses (a) to (c). A reading of section would indicate that the requirement of previous sanction is contemplated at the time of the court taking cognizance. In the present case, 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.PC.

34. In Dr.Subramanian Swamy Vs. Manmohan Singh and another (2012-3- SCC-64), the Honourable Supreme Court, while rejecting the argument of learned Attorney General of India 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:-

"34. The argument of the 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 that is neither supported by the plain language of the section nor the judicial precedents relied upon by him. Though, the term "cognizance" has not been defined either in the 1988 Act or Cr.PC, the same has acquired a definite meaning and connotation from various judicial precedents. In legal parlance cognizance is "taking judicial notice by the court of law, possessing jurisdiction, on a cause or matter presented before it so as to decide whether there is any basis for initiating proceedings and determination of the cause or matter judicially."