DILAWAR SINGH versus PARVINDER SINGH@ IQBAL SINGH AND ANR.

Citation: [2005] SUPP. 5 S.C.R. 83 · Decided: 08-11-2005 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: H.K. SEMA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

• 
DrLA WAR SINGH 
A 
v. 
PARVINDER SINGH@ IQBAL SINGH AND ANR. 
NOVEMBER 8, 2005 
[H.K. SEMA AND G.P. MATHUR, JJ.] 
B 
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988: 
Sections 19 & 13(2)-Prosecution of public servant-Necessity of 
previous sanction-Two accused-Sanction for prosecution granted qua only C 
one accused-Closure report in favour of Appellant, the other accused-
Dismissal of application filed by Respondent No.I under S.319 CrPC for 
summoning Appellant as a co-accused-Revision against-Direction of High 
Court to summon Appellant for prosecution-Validity of-Held, invalid-
Appe/lant for whose prosecution no sanction was granted, cannot be D 
summoned to face prosecution-The Act being a special statute, S.19 thereof 
has an overriding effect over the general provisions contained in S.190 or 
319 CrPC-Special Judge while trying an offence under the Act, cannot 
summon another person and proceed against him in purported exercise of 
power under S.319 CrPC if no sanction has been granted by the appropriate 
authority for prosecution of such a person-Code of Criminal Procedure, E 
1973-Sections 190 & 319. 
Maxims-"Generalia specilibus non derogant"-Applicability of 
Pursuant to a complaint filed by Respondent No.1 against two police 
officials-Appellant SRO and an ASI, a case was registered under Section 13(2) F 
of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. But after investigation, charge-
sheet was submitted only against the ASI for whose prosecution, necessary 
sanction had been obtained from the competent authority under Section 19 of 
· the Act No sanction had beeo. granted for prosecuti~n of the appellant Instead 
a closure report was submitted in his favour since in the opinion of the G 
Investigating Officer he had not committed any offence. After the statement 
of Respondent No.I had been recorded, he moved an application under Section 
319 CrPC for summoning the Appellant as a co-accused in the case, but the 
Special Judge dismissed the application. Revision Petition against the same 
was allowed by High Court and a direction was issued to summon Appellant 
83 
II 
84 
. SUPREME COURT REPORTS [200S] SUPP. S S.C;R. 
A and try him in accordance with law. 
B 
c 
The question which arose in the present appeals is, In the absence of 
sanction under Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 for 
prosecution of the appellant under Section 13(2) of the said Act, whether the 
S\ppellant could be summoned to face the trial. 
Allowing the appeals, the Court 
HELD: 1.1. The impugned order of the High Court directing summoning 
of the appellant and proceeding against him is clearly erroneous in law. 
189-BJ 
1.2. Sub-section (1) of Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 
1988 creates a complete bar on the power of the Court to take cognizance of 
an offence punishable under Sections 7, JO, 11, 13 and 15 alleged to have 
been committed by a public servant, except with the previous sanction of the 
competent authority enumerated in clauses (a) to (c) of this sub-section. If 
D the sub-section is read as a whole, it will clearly show that the sanction for 
prosecution has to be granted with respect to a specific accused and only after 
sanction has been granted the Court gets the competence to take cognizance 
of an offence punishable under Sections 7, 10, 11, 13 and 15 alleged to have 
been committ~d by such public servant. It is not possible to read the sectfon 
E in the manner suggested by the respondent that 1i' sanction for prosecution 
has been granted qua one accused, any other public servant for whose 
prosecution no sanction has been granted, can also be summoned to face 
prosecution. (88-B-D) 
State of Goa v. Babu Thomas (Crl. Appeal No. 215 of2004) decided by 
F S.C. on 29-9-2005, relied on. 
State through CBI v. Raj Kvmar Jain, 11998) 6 SCC 551 and Jaswant 
Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR (1958) SC 124, referred to. 
2.l. The contention raised by the respondent that a Court takes 
G cognizance of an offence and not of an offender holds good whim a Magistrate 
takes cognizance of an offence under Section 190 CrPC. (89-C) 
2.2. The Prevention of Corruption Act is a special statute and as the 
preamble shows this Act has been enacted to consolidate a.nd amend the law 
relating to prevention of corruption and for matters connected therewith. Here, 
H the principle expressed in the maxim Generalia specialibus non derogant 
DILAWARSINGHv. PARVINDER SINGH@IQBAL SINGH [G.P. MATHUR,J.] 
85 
would apply which me
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.