LexSTATE THROUGH CBL/ACB, HYDERABAD A.P. versus DHARMANA PRASED RAO
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2016] 2 S.C.R. 591
STATE THROUGH CBl/ACB, HYDERABAD A.P.
v.
DHARMANA PRASED RAO
(Criminal Appeal No. 398of2016)
APRIL 26, 2016
[A.K. SIKRI AND R.K. AGRAWAL, JJ.)
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - s. 362 - Prosecution of
14 accused including respondent-accused before Special Court -
ulss. 13(2) r!w s. 13(J){C){D) of Prevention of Corruption Act (PC
Act) - Initially the trial court did not take cognizance of the
respondent-accused and directed the Investigating Officer to file
sanction orders uls. 19 of PC Act - Later, when the Court was
informed that no sanction was required, it took cognizance of the
offences under PC Act against the respondent-accused - In revision
High Court set aside the order of trial court on the ground that
taking of cognizance at later stage amounted to review - On appeal,
held: The order of trial court taking cognizance would not amount
to review - The initial order whereby direction was issued to file
sanction order, cannot be construed as final order - Matter remitted
to High Court - Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - ss. 13(2) r!w
s. 13(1){C){D).
Allowing the appeal and remitting the matter to High Court,
the Court
HELD: Section 362 Cr.P.C. debars the Court from altering
or reviewing the judgment only in those cases when it has signed
its judgment or when it bas passed final order disposing of a case.
In the instant case, the Trial Court on the earlier occasion
had simply deferred taking cognizance under the impression
that the sanction u/s. 19 of the PC Act is required. There was
no final order passed disposing of the case inasmuch as had
the sanction been brought, (cognizance would have been taken
in any case), the Trial Court is authorised to take cognizance.
The Trial Court was not reviewing any order. The order dated
13.09.2012 could not be r,onstrued as final order, more so,
when there was no final determination of the issue regarding
591
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
592
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
(2016] 2 S.C.R.
A
requirement of sanction for prosecution against the respondent
herein. [ Para 6) [593-G-H; 594-DJ
B
CRIMINALAPPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No .
. 398of2016.
From the Judgment and Order dated 29.04.2013 of the High Court
of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in Crl. Revision Case No. 580 of2013.
Ranjit Kumar, SG, Amol Chilate, Zoheb Hossain, B. V. Balaram
Das for the Appellant.
Ajay Burman, Alok Kumar, Ms. Somya Yadava, Karan Burman,
c Balaji Srinivasan forthe Respondent.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
A.K. SIKRI, J. I. Leave granted.
2. This appeal is filed by the State through CBl,ACB, Hyderabad
D
questioning the validity of the order dated 29.04.2013 passed by the
High Court in Criminal Revision Petition which was filed by the respondent
herein under Sections 397 and 40 I of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 (herein referred to as "the Code"). The said revision
petition was filed by the respondent challenging the order dated 21.01.2013
passed by the Court of Principal Sessions Judge for CBI cases,
E
Hyderabad by which cognizance of the offence under Section 13 of the
Prevention of Corruption Act (hereinafter referred to as "the PC Act")
was taken against the respondent {A-5 in the Trial Court).
3. Without stating the prosecution case in detail, suffice it to mention
that the appellant/CBI has filed charge sheet in the Special Court against
F
14 accused persons including the respondent herein (A-5) under Section
13(2) read with Section 13( 1 )(C)(D)of the PC Act. They were also
charged for various offences under Sections, 420,409,467,468,4 71 and
120B etc. of the Indian Penal Code. Accused Nos. 4 and 5 were the
Ministers. After the filing of the charge sheet, the Special Court passed
an order dated 13.09.2012 whereby all these accused persons, under
G
the various provisions of the Indian Penal Code, were summoned. Insofar
as A-4 to A-8, including the respondent herein, are concerned, the Trial
Court directed the Investigation Officer to file sanction orders
contemplated under Section 19 of the PC Act without which no
cognizance can be taken for the said offences against these accused
H
persons. The appellant, thereafter, filed an application before the Special
STATE THROUGH CBI/ACB, HYDERABAD A.P. v.
DHARMANA PRASED RAO [A.K. SIKRI,J.]
Judge pointing out that no such sanction was required and insofar as A-
4 and A-5 are_ concerned, cognizance against them in respect of offences Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.