LexNANJAPPA versus STATE OF KARNATAKA
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2015] 8 S.C.R. 685 NANJAPPA v. STATE OF KARNATAKA (Criminal Appeal No. 1867 of 2012) JULY 24, 2015 [T.S. THAKUR AND AMITAVA ROY, JJ.] A s· Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988: s.19 - Sanction required uls. 19- Competency of trial court to take cognizance C of offence alleged against the public servant - Held: In the absence of a valid previous sanction required uls.19 of the Act, the trial Court is not competent to take cognizance of the offence alleged - The question regarding validity of such sanction can be raised at any stage of the proceedings - D. The competence of the court trying the accused depends upon the existence of a valid sanction - In case the sanction is found to be invalid, the court can discharge the accused relegating the parties to a ~tage where the c_om~etent auth6rity) E may grant a fresh sanction for prosecution m accordance with· 1aw - If the trial Court proceeds, despite the invaiidity attached to the sanction order,. the same shall be deemed to be non-est in the eyes of law and shall not forbid a second trial for the same offences, upon grant of a valid sanction for F such prosecution - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - s.465. Allowing the appeal, the Court ·HELD: 1. The language employed in sub-section (1) G of Section 19 admits of no equivocation and operates as a complete and absolute bar to any court taking cognizance of any offence punishable under Sections 685 -------· ·---- H 686 SUPREME COURT REPORTS · · [2015] 8 S.C.R. A ], 10, 11, 13 and 15 of the Act against a public servant except with the previous sanction of the competent authority.· The question regarding validity of such sanction can be raised at any stage of the proceedings. The competence of the court trying the accused so much B depends upon the existence of a _valid sanction. In case the sanction is found to be invalid, the court can discharge the accused relegating the parties to a stage where the competent authority may grant a fresh sanction for prosecution in accordance with law. If the C trial Court proceeds, despite the invalidity attached to the sanction order, the trial shall be deemed to be non- est in the eyes of law and shall not forbid a second trial for the same offences, upon grant of a valid sanction for 0 such prosecution. [paras 6, 15] [695-F-G; 703-G-H; 704- A-B] Baij Nath Tripathi vs. The State of Bhopal and Anr. 1957 SCR 650 : AIR 1957 SC 494; Budha Mal vs. State of Delhi, fC"f°iminal Appeal No.17 of 1952; State of Goa vs. Babu E Thomas 2005 (3) Suppl. SCR 712: (2005) 8 SCC 130; State of Kamataka vs. C. Nagarajaswamy 2005 (4) Suppl. SCR 169 : (2005) 8 SCC 370; B. Saha & Ors. vs. M.S. Kochar 1980 (1) SCR 111 : (1979) 4 SCC 177; K. Kalimuthu vs. State by DSP 2005 (3) SCR 1 : (2005) 4 SCC 512; Yusofalli F Mui/a vs. The King AIR 1949 PC 264, Basdeo Agarwal/a vs. King Emperor AIR 1945 FC - relied on . . _.. 2. A careful reading of sub-section (3) to Section 19 would show that the same interdicts reversal or alteration G of any finding, sentence or order passed by a Special Judge, on the ground thatthe sanction order suffers from an error, omission or irregularity, unless of course the court before whom such finding, sentence or order is challenged in appeal or revision is of the opinion that a H failure of justice has occurred by reason of such error, omission or irregularity. Sub-section (3), in other words, NANJAPPA v. STATE OF KARNATAKA 687 simply forbids interference with an order passed by A Special Judge in appeal, confirmation or revisional proceedings on the ground that the sanction is bad save and except, in cases where the appellate or revisional court finds that failure of justice has occurred by such invalidity. What is noteworthy is that sub-section (3) has B no application to proceedings before the Special Judge, who is free to pass an order discharging the accused, if he is of the opinion that a valid order sanctioning prosecution of the accused had not been produced as required under Section 19(1 ). Sub-section (3) postulates C a prohibition against a higher court reversing an order passed by the Special Judge on the ground of any defect, omission or irregularity in the order of sanction. It does not forbid a Special Judge from passing an order at 0 whatever stage of the proceedings holding that the prosecution is not maintainable for want of a valid order sanctioning the same. The language employed i
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.