K.KARUNAKARAN versus STATE OF KERALA

Citation: [2006] SUPP. 10 S.C.R. 283 · Decided: 06-12-2006 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Disposed off

Judgment (excerpt)

.. 
K.KARUNAKARAN 
v. 
STATE OF KERALA 
DECEMBER 6, 2006 
[DR. ARIJIT PASAYA T AND S.H. KAPADIA, JJ.] 
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973-Section 197-Prosecution without 
Sanction-Challenged-High Court holding sanction not necessary since 
A 
B 
the person was not holding the office when cognizance was taken-Additional C 
a/legation of victimization by prosecution due to ma/a fides and political 
rivalry in view of certain facts brought on record-Held: Decision of High 
Court regarding status on the date of taking cognizance justified-Since the 
additional facts regarding allegation of mala fides not brought to the notice 
of High Court, direction to High Court to consider the plea relating to 
malafides. 
Cognizance of an offence was taken against the appellant and he was 
prosecuted. The same was questioned on the ground of lack of sanction. High 
Court held that no sar.ction was necessary as the appellant was not holding 
the office which he allegedly abused. 
In appeal to this Court, appellant contended that the prosecution was 
the outcome of malafides and political vendetta, in view of the varying stands 
taken at different stages regarding the withdrawal of prosecution and 
continuation of the prosecution. 
Disposing of the appeal, the Court 
HELD: l. The order of the High Court is upheld to the extent it held 
that the status on the date of taking cognizance vis-a-vis the position when 
the office was allegedly abused has been rightly decided. (286-8-CJ 
D 
E 
F 
2. As regards the question whether ma/a fides are involved, certain G 
peculiar features exist in this case which show that the State wanted to 
withdraw the prosecution and consequently showed no intention to withdraw 
the same, need consideration. These aspects were not before the High Court 
when the matter was heard. The relevance of these factors the:-efore could 
283 
H 
284 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2006] SUPP. 10 S.C.R. 
A not have been considered. High Court is directed to consider the matter 
relating to the plea of malafides for which the parties shall be permitted to 
place relevant materials. f 285-A-B; 286-B-C) 
B 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 801/ 
2003. 
From the final Judgment and Order dated 19-2-2003 of the High Court 
ofKerala at Emakulam in Cr!. R.P. No. 430/2001. 
Uday Umesh Lalit, Gaurav Agrawal for the Appellant. 
C 
Naveen Kumar Singh, Mukul Sood and Aruneshwar Gupta for the 
Respondent. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
DR. ARIJIT PASAYA T, J. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment 
D rendered by a learned Single Judge of the Kerala High Court holding that 
since the appellant was not holding office which he allegedly abused, at the 
time of taking cognizance, no sanction was necessary. 
Primary stand in this appeal is that the view expressed in R. S. Nayak 
v. A.R. Antulay, [1984] 2 SCC 183, is. not correct and fresh look is necessary 
E as the observations made are per incuriam. An additional point has been 
raised that the prosecution is the outcome of ma/a fides and varying stands 
taken at different stages clearly indicate the fact that the appellant is the 
victim of personal and political rivalry with leaders of some political parties. 
Learned counsel for the respondent-State on the other hand submitted 
F that the decision in R.S. Nayak 's case (supra) cannot be said to be a case of 
per incuriam. Additionally, there is no ma/a fide involved. It is stated that 
even if for the sake of arguments it is conceded but not admitted that political 
reasons exist that cannot be a ground to quash the proceedings. In any event, 
the circumstances highlighted by the appellant to substantiate the plea of 
G allegation cannot be taken note of. 
The principal stand of the appellant's arguments regarding the status 
on the date of cognizance has been elaborately dealt with and the decision 
in Parkash Singh Badal's case rendered today (in Criminal Appeal arising out 
of SLP (Crl.) 19640 of2004) rightly accepts his case. The stand in this regard 
H is clearly without substance. 
K.KARUNAKARANv. STATEOFKERALA[PASAYAT,J.) 
285 
The residual question therefore is whether ma/a jides are involved. As A 
is noted in Parkash Singh Badal's case even though there is an element of 
personal or political rivalry, it is ultimately to be seen whether materials exist 
to substantiate the allegations. In that sense it is not the credibility of the 
person who makes the allegations but the existence of materials

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.