STATE OF KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTA POLICE versus S. SUBBEGOWDA

Citation: [2023] 11 S.C.R. 19 · Decided: 03-08-2023 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ANIRUDDHA BOSE · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Cited by 3 judgment(s) · cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

[2023] 11 S.C.R. 19 : 2023 INSC 669 
CASE DETAILS
STATE OF KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTA POLICE
v.
S. SUBBEGOWDA
(Criminal Appeal No. 1598 of 2023)
AUGUST 03, 2023
[ANIRUDDHA BOSE AND BELA M. TRIVEDI, JJ.]
HEADNOTES
Issues for consideration: 
(i) Whether the High Court in exercise of its powers u/s. 482 of CrPC 
could have discharged the respondent-accused from the charges levelled 
against him for the oﬀ ences u/s. 13(1)(e) punishable u/s. 13(2) of the said Act, 
despite the fact that the accused had not pressed for his second application 
for discharge by submitting the Memo dated 02.12.2014 and despite the 
fact that after framing of the charge by the Special Court on 23.12.2014, the 
trial had proceeded further and the prosecution had examined 17 witnesses 
in support of its case? 
(ii) Whether the High Court in the criminal petition ﬁ led u/s. 482 
of the CrPC could reverse the ﬁ ndings recorded by the Special Court with 
regard to the validity of sanction, ignoring the bar contained in sub-section 
(3) read with sub-section (4) of s.19 of the said Act?
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 – s.13(1)(e) and s.13(2) 
– Charges framed – Trial Court examined witnesses – High Court 
discharged the accused – Propriety of:
Held : Admittedly, the second application was not pressed for by 
the respondent by submitting the Memo on 02.12.2014, wherein it was 
stated that the Court may proceed to frame charge against him – Thus, by 
the said Memo, the respondent-accused had speciﬁ cally not pressed for 
his contention with regard to the validity of sanction or error in granting 
the sanction by the Government, and he speciﬁ cally requested the Court 
to proceed further with the framing of charge – Considering the said 
memo, the trial court framed the charge, and the prosecution examined 
20
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2023] 11 S.C.R.
as many as 17 witnesses in support of its case – At that stage, the 
respondent submitted the third application which was in the nature of 
interlocutory application again seeking the discharge u/s. 227 of CrPC on 
the ground that there was an error in the sanction order, the Government 
being not competent to grant the sanction u/s. 19(1) of the said Act – 
The said application having been dismissed by the trial court, the High 
Court could not and should not have entertained the petition u/s. 482 of 
CrPC, which was in the nature of revision application, and reversed the 
ﬁ ndings recorded by the trial court, in view of sub-section (3) read with 
sub-section (4) of s.19 of the said Act. [Para 7]
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 – s. 19(3) – Special Judge 
recorded ﬁ ndings – Findings reversed by the High Court – Propriety 
of:
Held : While dismissing the third application filed by the 
respondent seeking discharge after examination of 17 witnesses by 
the prosecution, it was speciﬁ cally held by the Special Judge that the 
sanction accorded by the Government which was a superior authority 
was proper and valid – Such ﬁ ndings recorded by the Special Judge 
could not have been and should not have been reversed or altered by 
the High Court, in view of the speciﬁ c bar contained in sub-section (3) 
of s.19 and that too without recording any opinion as to how a failure 
of justice occasioned. [Para 14]
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 – Interlocutory application 
seeking discharge midst of trial – Maintainablity of:
Held : Such an interlocutory application seeking discharge in the 
midst of trial would not be maintainable – Once the cognizance was taken 
by the Special Judge and the charge was framed against the accused, the 
trial could neither have been stayed nor scuttled in the midst of it in view 
of Section 19(3) of the said Act – In the instant case, though the issue 
of validity of sanction was raised at the earlier point of time, the same 
was not pressed for – The only stage open to the respondent-accused 
in that situation was to raise the said issue at the ﬁ nal arguments in the 
trial. [Para 15] 
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 – s.19(1) – Stages of raising 
issue with regard to validity of sanction u/s. 19(1):
21
Held : The stages of proceedings at which an accused could raise the issue 
with regard to the validity of the sanction would be the stage when the Court takes 
cognizance of the oﬀ ence, the stage when the charge is to be framed by the Court 
or at the stage when the trial is complete i.e., at the stage of ﬁ nal arguments in the 
trial – Such issue of course, could be raised befo
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.