9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (7) TMI 1339 - SC - Indian LawsDemand of Bribe - Sections 7 and 13 read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - prosecution case is that the complainant who was examined at the trial as PW-1, appeared before the Lokayukta Police to allege that the Appellant had demanded a bribe of ₹ 500/- from him for issue of a copy of a certain resolution dated 13th March, 1998 passed by the Sabbanakruppe Grama Panchayath - HELD THAT - This appeal must, in our opinion, succeed on the short ground that in the absence of a valid previous sanction required Under Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, the trial Court was not competent to take cognizance of the offence alleged against the Appellant. The legal position regarding the importance of sanction Under Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption is thus much too clear to admit equivocation. The statute forbids taking of cognizance by the Court against a public servant except with the previous sanction of an authority competent to grant such sanction in terms of Clauses (a), (b) and (c) to Section 19(1). 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 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 trial Court proceeds, despite the invalidity 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 such prosecution. A careful reading of Sub-section (3) to Section 19 would show that the same interdicts reversal or alteration of any finding, sentence or order passed by a Special Judge, on the ground that the 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 failure of justice has occurred by reason of such error, omission or irregularity - The rationale underlying the provision obviously is that if the trial has proceeded to conclusion and resulted in a finding or sentence, the same should not be lightly interfered with by the appellate or the revisional court simply because there was some omission, error or irregularity in the order sanctioning prosecution Under Section 19(1). Failure of justice is, what the appellate or revisional Court would in such cases look for. And while examining whether any such failure had indeed taken place, the Court concerned would also keep in mind whether the objection touching the error, omission or irregularity in the sanction could or should have been raised at an earlier stage of the proceedings meaning thereby whether the same could and should have been raised at the trial stage instead of being urged in appeal or revision. In the case at hand, the Special Court not only entertained the contention urged on behalf of the accused about the invalidity of the order of sanction but found that the authority issuing the said order was incompetent to grant sanction. The trial Court held that the authority who had issued the sanction was not competent to do so, a fact which has not been disputed before the High Court or before us - The only error which the trial Court, in our opinion, committed was that, having held the sanction to be invalid, it should have discharged the accused rather than recording an order of acquittal on the merit of the case. The High Court has not, in our opinion, correctly appreciated the legal position regarding the need for sanction or the effect of its invalidity. It has simply glossed over the subject, by holding that the question should have been raised at an earlier stage. The High Court did not, it appears, realise that the issue was not being raised before it for the first time but had been successfully urged before the trial Court. Appeal allowed.
Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the sanction for prosecution under Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act. 2. Competence of the authority granting the sanction. 3. Effect of the absence of a valid sanction on the trial and conviction. 4. Applicability of Section 19(3) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and Section 465 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 5. Whether a fresh trial should be conducted given the passage of time and circumstances. Detailed Analysis: 1. Validity of the Sanction for Prosecution: The appeal arises from a judgment where the High Court of Karnataka reversed an acquittal and convicted the appellant under Sections 7 and 13 read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The High Court held that the sanction order's validity was not questioned at the appropriate stage and that the prosecution's evidence sufficiently proved the appellant's guilt. However, the Supreme Court emphasized that the absence of a valid previous sanction under Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act renders the trial court incompetent to take cognizance of the offence. Section 19 mandates that no court shall take cognizance of offences under Sections 7, 10, 11, 13, and 15 against public servants without prior sanction from the competent authority. 2. Competence of the Authority Granting the Sanction: The trial court had found that the sanction for prosecution was not granted by the competent authority, as required under Section 19 of the P.C. Act. The Chief Officer, Zilla Panchayat, was identified as the only competent authority to grant such sanction. The Supreme Court reiterated that the competence of the authority to grant sanction is crucial and any error in this regard affects the validity of the sanction. 3. Effect of the Absence of a Valid Sanction on the Trial and Conviction: The Supreme Court cited several precedents, including Baij Nath Tripathi v. The State of Bhopal and Anr. and State of Goa v. Babu Thomas, to underscore that the absence of a valid sanction affects the competence of the court to try the accused. The trial conducted without a valid sanction is considered null and void. The Supreme Court noted that the trial court should have discharged the accused upon finding the sanction invalid, rather than acquitting him on the merits of the case. 4. Applicability of Section 19(3) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and Section 465 of the Code of Criminal Procedure: Section 19(3) of the P.C. Act and Section 465 of the Code of Criminal Procedure were discussed in the context of whether errors or irregularities in the sanction order could invalidate the trial. The Supreme Court clarified that Section 19(3) prevents higher courts from reversing orders based on sanction errors unless a failure of justice is demonstrated. However, this does not apply to the trial stage, where the Special Judge can discharge the accused if the sanction is found invalid. The Supreme Court emphasized that objections regarding the validity of the sanction could be raised at any stage, including during final arguments or on appeal. 5. Whether a Fresh Trial Should Be Conducted: Given the passage of time since the incident in 1998 and the appellant's current status as a senior citizen, the Supreme Court found no compelling reason to direct a fresh trial. The trial court had already expressed doubts about the prosecution's case, and a new trial would not serve any meaningful purpose. The Supreme Court thus allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court's order, and concluded that the appellant had already endured sufficient legal and personal consequences. Conclusion: The Supreme Court's judgment underscores the critical importance of obtaining a valid sanction for prosecution under the Prevention of Corruption Act. The absence of such a sanction renders the trial and any subsequent conviction invalid. The Court also highlighted that objections to the validity of the sanction could be raised at any stage of the proceedings. Given the circumstances, the Court decided against ordering a fresh trial, considering the appellant's age and the elapsed time since the incident. The appeal was allowed, and the High Court's order was set aside.
|
