ANIL KUMAR & ORS. versus M. K. AIYAPPA & ANR.

Citation: [2013] 9 S.C.R. 869 · Decided: 01-10-2013 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN · Disposal: Dismissed
Cited by 3 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

[2013] 9 S.C.R. 869 
ANIL KUMAR & ORS. 
v. 
M. K. AIYAPPA & ANR. 
(Criminal Appeal Nos. 1590-1591 of 2013) 
OCTOBER 01, 2013 
[K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN AND A.K. SIKRI, JJ.] 
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: 
A 
B 
ss.197 rlw ss.190, 200 and 156(3) CrPC and s.19 of the 
C 
PC Act - Complaint u/s 200 against a public servant -
Previous sanction not obtained - Special Judge directing 
investigation to be conducted by DSP, Lokayukta - Held: 
Once it is noticed that there was no previous sanction, the 
Magistrate cannot order investigation against a public servant 0 
while invoking powers u!s." 156(3) Cr.P.C. - The Special Judge 
has stated no reason for ordering investigation -- High Court 
has rightly quashed the order of Special Judge as well as the 
complaint - Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - s. 14. 
ss.156(3) rlw s.190 - Power of Magistrate to order E 
investigation -
Held: A Magistrate, who is otherwise 
competent to take cognizance, has the power to refer a private 
complaint for police investigation u/s. 156(3) Cr.P.C. -- When 
a Special Judge refers a complaint for investigation u/s. 
156(3) Cr.P.C., obviously, he has not taken cognizance of the 
F 
offence and, therefore, it is a pre-cognizance stage and 
cannot be equated with post-cognizance stage. 
The Appellants filed a complaint u/s 200 of Cr.P.C. 
before the Additional City Civil and Special Judge G 
alleging commission of offences under Prevention of 
Corruption Act, 1988. The Special Judge passed an order 
referring the complaint for investigation by the Deputy 
Superintendent of Police, Karnataka Lokayukta u/s. 
869 
H 
870 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2013] 9 S.C.R. 
A 156(3) of Cr.P.C. The first respondent filed writ petitions 
before the High Court, which quashed the order passed 
by the Special Judge, as well as the complaint. 
In the instant appeal filed by the complainants, the 
8 question for consideration before the Court was: whether 
the Special Judge/Magistrate was justified in referring a 
private complaint made u/s. 200 Cr.P.C. for investigation 
by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Karnataka 
Lokayukta, in exercise of powers conferred u/s. 156(3) 
C Cr.P.C. without the production of a valid sanction order 
u/s. 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. 
Dismissing the appeals, the Court 
HELD: 1.1 This Court in Maksud Saiyed has held that 
o where jurisdiction is exercised on a complaint filed in 
terms of s. 156(3) or s. 200 Cr.P .C., the Special Judge/ 
Magistrate is required to apply his mind and cannot refer 
the matter u/s. 156(3) against a public servant without a 
valid sanction order. The application of mind by the 
E Magistrate should be reflected in the order. What weighed 
with the Magistrate to order investigation u/s. 156(3) 
Cr.P.C., should be reflected in the order, though a detailed 
expression of his views is neither required nor warranted. 
In the instant case, the Special Judge has stated no 
F reasons for ordering investigation. [Para 8] [876-C-F] 
Maksud Saiyed v. State of Gujarat and Others 2007 
(9) SCR 1113 = (2008) 5 sec 668 - relied on. 
1.2 When a private complaint is filed before the 
G Magistrate, he has two options: He may take cognizance 
of the offence u/s. 190 Cr.P.C. or proceed further in 
enquiry or trial. A Magistrate, who is otherwise competent 
to take cognizance, without taking cognizance u/s 190, 
may direct an investigation u/s. 156(3) Cr.P .C. The 
H Magistrate, who is empowered u/s. 190 to take 
ANIL KUMAR & ORS. v. M. K. AIYAPPA 
871 
cognizance, alone has the power to refer a private 
A 
complaint for police investigation uls. 156(3) Cr.P.C. When 
a Special Judge refers a complaint for investigation uls. 
156(3) Cr.P.C., obviously, he has not taken cognizance 
of the offence and, therefore, it is a pre-cognizance stage 
and cannot be equated with post-cognizance stage. [Para 
B 
10- 11] [878-E-F; 879-A-B] 
1.3 Sub-s. (3) of s. 19 of the PC Act has an object to 
achieve, which applies in circumstances where a Special 
Judge has already rendered a finding, sentence or order. 
C 
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, the Magistrate cannot order D 
investigation against a public servant while invoking 
powers uls. 156(3) Cr.P.C. [Para 13] [880-G-H;
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.