Issues for consideration:
(i) Whether the High Court in exercise of its powers u/s. 482 of CrPC could have discharged the respondent-accused from the charges levelled against him for the offences u/s. 13(1)(e) punishable u/s. 13(2) of the said Act, despite the fact that the accused had not pressed for his second application for discharge by submitting the Memo dated 02.12.2014 and despite the fact that after framing of the charge by the Special Court on 23.12.2014, the trial had proceeded further and the prosecution had examined 17 witnesses in support of its case?
(ii) Whether the High Court in the criminal petition filed u/s. 482 of the CrPC could reverse the findings recorded by the Special Court with regard to the validity of sanction, ignoring the bar contained in sub-section
(3) read with sub-section (4) of s.19 of the said Act? Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 – s.13(1)(e) and s.13(2) – Charges framed – Trial Court examined witnesses – High Court discharged the accused – Propriety of:
Held : Admittedly, the second application was not pressed for by the respondent by submitting the Memo on 02.12.2014, wherein it was stated that the Court may proceed to frame charge against him – Thus, by the said Memo, the respondent-accused had specifically not pressed for his contention with regard to the validity of sanction or error in granting the sanction by the Government, and he specifically requested the Court to proceed further with the framing of charge – Considering the said memo, the trial court framed the charge, and the prosecution examined as many as 17 witnesses in support of its case – At that stage, the respondent submitted the third application which was in the nature of interlocutory application again seeking the discharge u/s. 227 of CrPC on the ground that there was an error in the sanction order, the Government being not competent to grant the sanction u/s. 19(1) of the said Act – The said application having been dismissed by the trial court, the High Court could not and should not have entertained the petition u/s. 482 of CrPC, which was in the nature of revision application, and reversed the findings recorded by the trial court, in view of sub-section (3) read with sub-section (4) of s.19 of the said Act. [Para 7]
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 – s. 19(3) – Special Judge recorded findings – Findings reversed by the High Court – Propriety of:
Held : While dismissing the third application filed by the respondent seeking discharge after examination of 17 witnesses by the prosecution, it was specifically held by the Special Judge that the sanction accorded by the Government which was a superior authority was proper and valid – Such fi ndings recorded by the Special Judge could not have been and should not have been reversed or altered by the High Court, in view of the specific bar contained in sub-section (3) of s.19 and that too without recording any opinion as to how a failure of justice occasioned. [Para 14]
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 – Interlocutory application seeking discharge midst of trial – Maintainablity of: Held : Such an interlocutory application seeking discharge in the midst of trial would not be maintainable – Once the cognizance was taken by the Special Judge and the charge was framed against the accused, the trial could neither have been stayed nor scuttled in the midst of it in view of Section 19(3) of the said Act – In the instant case, though the issue of validity of sanction was raised at the earlier point of time, the same was not pressed for – The only stage open to the respondent-accused in that situation was to raise the said issue at the final arguments in the trial. [Para 15]
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 – s.19(1) – Stages of raising issue with regard to validity of sanction u/s. 19(1): Held : The stages of proceedings at which an accused could raise the issue with regard to the validity of the sanction would be the stage when the Court takes cognizance of the offence, the stage when the charge is to be framed by the Court or at the stage when the trial is complete i.e., at the stage of final arguments in the trial – Such issue of course, could be raised before the Court in appeal, revision or confirmation, however the powers of such court would be subject to sub-section
(3) and sub-section (4) of Section 19 of the said Act. [Para 10] Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 – s.19(3) and (4) – Combined reading of:
Held : The combined reading of sub-section (3) and (4) of Section 19 makes it clear that notwithstanding anything contained in the Code, no finding, sentence or order passed by the Special Judge shall be reversed or altered by a Court in appeal, confirmation or revision on the ground of, the absence of, or any error, omission or irregularity in the sanction required under sub-section (1), unless in the opinion of the Court, a failure of justice has in fact been occasioned thereby. [Para 11]
LIST OF CITATIONS AND OTHER REFERENCES
Nanjappa Vs. State of Karnataka (2015) 14 SCC 186 : [2015] 8 SCR 685; State of M.P. vs. Bhooraji and Others (2001) 7 SCC 679 : [2001] 2 Suppl. SCR 128 – relied on.
OTHER CASE DETAILS INCLUDING IMPUGNED
ORDER AND APPEARANCES
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.