PAUL VARGHESE versus STATE OF KERALA AND ANR.

Citation: [2007] 4 S.C.R. 1155 · Decided: 10-04-2007 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Disposed off

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

( 
PAUL VARGHESE 
A 
v. 
STATE OF KERALA AND ANR. 
APRIL I 0, 2007 
[DR. ARIIlT PASAYA T AND S.H. KAPADIA, JJ.] 
Bl 
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988: 
s. 19-Sanctionfor prosecution-Necessity of-lmpleadment of accused 
under s. 319 Cr.P.C. without sanction for prosecution, holding thats. 319 C 
Cr.P. C. overrides s. 19 of the Act-Order of impleadment set aside by Revisional 
Court holding that s. 319 does not override s. 19-0n appeal, held: s. S 19 
Cr.P.C. does not have preference overs. 19-However, in the cases covered 
under the Act, in respect of public servants, the sanction is automatic-Mere 
error, omission or irregularity in sanction is not fatal unless it has resulted D 
in failure of justice-Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973-s. 319. 
s. 19-Sanction for prosecution-Under s. 19 of the Act ands. 197 
Cr.P.C.-Distinction between-Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973-s. lW . . 
Investigating Officer submitted a report recommending prosecution, of E 
accused 1, accused 2 (respondent No. 2) and accused 3. Sanctioning Authority 
decided to sanction the prosecution of only A-1 and names of A-2 & 3 were 
deleted. During trial, material came to light showing alleged involvement of 
A-2 and A-3 also. Trial Court impleaded A-2 and A-3 in terms of Section 3.19 
Cr.P.C and directed Legal Advisor to obtain sanction from the Competent 
Authority to prosecute them. Legal Advisor took the stand that no sancti~n F 
was necessary. Trial court held that the accused could be impleaded even 
without sanction as Section 319 Cr.P.C. overrides Section 19 of Prevention 
of Corruption Act, 1988, and for exercise of power under section 319, the 
only condition required to be fulfilled was as set out in sub-section (4) therC9£ 
In Revision, High Court held that the view of trial court was not sustainable. G 
Hence the present ap~I. 
Disposing of the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1. It has been rightly held by the High Court that the Trial Court 
I 
1155 
fl 
1156 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2007] 4 S.C.R. 
A was not justified in holding that Section 319 Cr.P.C. has to get preference/ 
primacy over Section 19 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. 
[Para 4) [1157-E) 
2.1. In Sub-Section (3) of Section 19, the stress is on "failure of justice" 
and that too "in the opinion of the Court". In sub-section (4), the stress is on 
B raising the plea at the appropriate time. Significantly; the "failure of justice" 
is relatable to error, omission or irregularity in the sanction. Therefore, mere 
error, omission or irregularity in sanction is considered fatal unless it has 
resulted in failure of justice or has been occasioned thereby. Whether sanction 
is necessary or not has to be considered on the factual scenario. The question 
of sanction involves two aspects i.e. one relating to alleged lack of jurisdiction 
C and the other relating to prejudice. [Paras 8 ~nd 9) [1159-C, D, E) 
State by Police Inspector v. T. Venkatesh Murthy, [2004) 7 SCC 763, 
relied on. 
Central Bureau of Investigation v. V. K. Sehgal and Anr., (1999] 8 SCC 
D 501 and Parkash Singh Badal and Anr. v. State of Punjab and Ors., [2007] 1 
sec 1, re"fen-.e!!, to. 
2.2. Section 197 Cr.P.C. and Section 19 of the Act operate in 
conceptually different fields. In cases covered under the Act, in respect of 
public servants the sanctio_n is of automatic nature and thus factual. aspects 
E are oflittle or no consequence. Conversely, in a case relatable to Section 197 
Cr.P.C. the substratum and basic features of the case have to be considered to 
find out whether the alleged act has any nexus to the discharge of duties. 
Position is not so in case of Section 19 of the Act. (Para 10) (1159-E, F) 
Lalu Prasad@Lalu Prasad Yadav v. State of Bihar through CBI (AHD) 
F 
Patna, [2007) 1 sec 49, referred to. 
G 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 527 of 
2007. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 19.01.2006 of the High Court of 
Kerala at Emakulam in Criminal Revision Petition No. 370of1999. 
Colin Gonsalves, Komal and Jyoti Mendiratta for the Appellant. 
The Judgment of the Court was d.elivered by 
DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. l. Leave granted. 
H 
2. Challenge in this appeal is to the order passed by a learned Single 
PAUL VARGHESEv. STATEOFKERALA(PASAYAT,J.] 
1157 
Judge of the Kerala High Court allowing the revision filed by the respondent A 
no.2 in the present appeal who was the petitioner before the High Court. He 
had questioned correctness of the order passed by the Inquiry Commission

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