LexL. NARAYANA SWAMY versus STATE OF KARNATAKA & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
(2016] 5 S.C.R. 683 L. NARAYANA SWAMY v. STATE OF KARNATAKA & ORS. (Criminal Appeal No. 721 of2016) SEPTEMBER 06, 2016 (A.K. SIKRl AND N.V. RAMANA, JJ.] Prevention of Corruption Act, 19./7: s.19(1) - Bar taking cug11iza11ce of ojfence - Held: Bar u/ s.19(1) would not corer ll'ithin its sweep order directing investigation uls.156(3) Cr.P.C. - An order directing investigation uls.156(3) against public servant can be passed only after obtaining valid sanction - Code of Criminal Procedure, 197 3 - s.156(3) . s.19(1) - Whether the public servant not being in the same post ;1•hen the offence was allegedly committed though continuing as a public servant loses the protection under s.19(1) of PC Act - Held: Where the public servant had abused the office which he held in the check period but had ceased lo hold "that office" or was holding a different office, then sanction ll'Ould not be necessary - It means where the alleged misconduct is in some different capacity than the one ll'hich is held at the time of taking cognizance, there ·will be no necessity to take the sanction. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: s.482 - Quashing of proceedings - Allegations that appellants abused their official position and thereby committed offence under PC Act - It was matter of evidence on the basis of which culpability of appellants has to be judged - In the facts of the case, proceedings not quashed. Allowing the appeals, the Court HELD: 1. The plain language of Section 19(1) conveys that A B c D E F the Court is precluded from taking "cognizance" of an offence G under certain sections mentioned in this provision if the prosecution is against the public servant, unless previous sanction of the Government (Central or State, as the case may be) has been obtained. Section 190 of the Cr.P.C. stipulates that cognizance of an offence is to be taken under three contingencies 683 H 684 A B c D E F G H SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2016] 5 S.C.R. viz. (a) upon receiving a complaint of facts which constitute such offence, or (b) on the basis of police report stating such facts which constitute an offence or upon information received from any person other than police officer, or (c) suo moto when Magistrate acquires that such an offence has been committed. When a complaint is received, the Court records preliminary evidence of the complainant on the basis of which it satisfies itself as to whether sufficient evidence is placed on record which may prinw facie constitute such offence. Likewise, Police report is filed under Section 173(2) of the Cr.P.C. on the completion of investigation and on perusal thereof, the Magistrate satisfies himself about the facts which constitute such offence. Similar is the position in the third contingency. It was held in * Anil Kumar case that the word "cognizance" has a wider connotation and is not merely confined to the stage of taking cognizance of the offence. When a Special Judge refers a complaint for investigation under Section 156(3) CrPC, 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. When a Special Judge takes cognizance of the offence on a complaint presented under Section 200 CrPC and the next step to be taken is to follow up under Section 202 CrPC. Consequently, a Special Judge referring the case for investigation under Section 156(3) is at pre-cognizance stage. In other words, an order directing further investigation under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. cannot be passed in the absence of valid sanction. [Para 9, 10, 12)(690- F-G; 691-A-B, F,G; 694-G; 695-EJ Manharibhai Muljibhai Kakadia and Anr. v. Shaileshbhai Mohanbhai Patel and Ors. 2012 (8) SCR 1015: 2012 (10) SCC 517; *Anil Kumar & Ors. v. MK. Aiyappa & Am: 2013 (9) SCR 869 : 2013 (10 ) SCC 705 - relied on. 2 .1. The High Court was absolutely right in relying on the decision in Prakaslt Sing/I Badal to hold that the appellants in both the appeals had abused entirely different office or offices than the one which they were holding on the date on which cognizance was taken and, therefore, there was no necessity of sanction under Section 19, P.C. Act. Where the public servant L. NARAYANA SWAMY v. STATE OF KARNATAKA & ORS. had abused the office which he held in the check period but had ceased to hold "that office" or was holding a different office, then a sanction would no
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.