STATE OF KARNATAKA THROUGH CBI versus C. NAGARAJASWAMY

Citation: [2005] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 169 · Decided: 07-10-2005 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.B. SINHA · Disposal: Disposed off

Judgment (excerpt)

·> 
STATE OF KARNATAKA THROUGH CBI 
A 
v. 
C. NAGARAJASWAMY 
OCTOBER 7, 2005 
[S.B. SINHA AND R.V. RA VEENDRAN, JJ.] 
B 
Constitution of India-Article 20(2)-Code of Criminal Procedure, 
1973-Section 300-Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988-Section 19-State 
initiated proceeding~ against persons without proper order of sanction for C 
prosecution-Trial Court discharged the persons on ground of invalid sanction 
after full fledged trial-Challenge of the initiation of fresh proceedings on 
obtaining proper sanction before High Court-High Court allowed the 
applications of the persons-Correctness of-Held, grant of proper sanction 
is a sine qua non for taking cognisance of the offence-Question of proper 
sanction can be dealt with after taking cognisance of the offence or after trial D 
or even before an appellate court for the first time--Fresh proceedings initiated 
cannot be barred by Section 300 Cr.P.C. 
In the first of the two appeals, State initiated proceedings against. 
the respondent under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 before trial 
court for demanding illegal gratification. The trial court took cognisance E 
of the offence, examined witnesses and recorded the statement of the 
respondent under section 313 Cr.P.C. The trial court thereafter discharged 
the respondent on the ground that the sanction for prosecution accorded 
by authority was illegal. The State filed a fresh charge sheet before the 
trial court with a proper order of sanction. The respondent challenged F 
the filing of the fresh charge sheet before High Court under section 482 
Cr.P.C. The High Court allowed the application of the respondent holding 
that when a accused faces a full-fledged trial, the trial court must either 
record a judgment of conviction or acquittal and the accused cannot be 
discharged under section 227 Cr.P.C. 
In the other appeal, the State initiated criminal proceedings against 
the respondent for misappropriation of money before trial court. When 
the proceedings were pending, the respondent was dismissed from service. 
The respondent faced a full fledged trial and was examined under section 
169 
G 
H 
170 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2005] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 
A 313 Cr.P.C. The respondent raised a plea before the trial court that the 
sanction for prosecution accorded by the Managing Director was illegal 
because only the Board of Directors was competent to accord the sanction. 
The trial court accepted the plea of the respondent and held that the 
sanction order was invalid. The State filed a second charge sheet against 
B 
the respondent before the trial court without obtaining any sanction on 
the ground that the respondent has been dismissed from service. The 
respondent filed an application under section 482 Cr.P.C. before High 
Court for quashing the criminal proceedings. The High Court quashed 
the proceedings on the ground that no fresh trial is permissible in law. 
C 
In appeals to this Court, the appellant State contended that the High 
Court failed to consider the provisions of section 300 Cr.P.C.; that the 
court cannot take cognisance of the offence without a proper sanction for 
prosecution and hence another trial with proper sanction is not barred. 
The respondents contended that under Chapter XVIII Cr.P.C., a trial 
D court, after conducting a full-fledged trial, cannot pass an order of 
discharge or drop the proceedings on the ground of improper sanction 
and thereby make liable for another trial with proper sanction for 
prosecution. 
Disposing of the appeals, the Court 
E 
HELD: I.I. Ordinarily, the question as to whether a proper sanction 
has been accorded for prosecution of the accused persons or not is a matter 
which should be dealt with at the stage of taking cognisance. But in a case 
of this nature where a question is raised as to whether the authority 
granting the sanction was competent therefor or not, at the stage of final 
F arguments after trial, the !iame may have to be considered having regard 
to the terms and conditions of service of the accused for the purpose of 
determination as to who could remove him from service. Grant of proper 
sanction by a competent authority is a sine qua non for taking cognisance 
of the offence. It is desirable that the question as regard sanction may be 
G determined at an early stage. But, even if a cognisance of the offence is 
taken erroneously and the same cones to the court's notice at a later stage, 
a finding to that affect is permissible. Even such

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