2022 (1) TMI 1307 - HC - Indian Laws

Application to MUDA seeking cancellation of allotment - HELD THAT - The trial Court has recorded a finding that the question of granting sanction for prosecution of accused Nos. 4 to 6 which includes the present petitioner does not arise on the following grounds viz. (a) That the elected representative is elected by the people and not appointed by any person and accordingly no person including the Speaker is competent to remove the MLA/MP from his office and therefore the question of granting sanction for prosecution of accused Nos. 4 to 6 does not arise at all. (b) That accused Nos. 4 to 6 were the then Members of MUDA and no sanction to prosecute them is required under the provisions of pre-amended Prevention of Corruption Act 1988. The trial Court has further proceeded to take note of the charge sheet and enclosures and has opined that prima facie there are sufficient material to take cognizance of the offences alleged and has ordered to proceed against accused Nos. 1 to 24 and while taking cognizance of the offence has directed issuance of summons to accused Nos. 1 to 24. Insofar as the conclusion that no sanction is required as against the petitioner the conclusion of trial Court is indeed correct and could be supported by virtue of the reasoning as made by this Court in the present order - The conclusion arrived at is correct and it would secure the ends of justice to leave the order of the trial Court undisturbed. However the observation made as noticed at point (a) above may not be correct as it is the settled position of law that the Speaker would be the competent Authority to grant sanction for prosecution as regards the elected representatives. It is clear that the conclusion arrived at by the trial Court is correct. The defect in reasoning in arriving at such conclusion is liable to be ignored and would require to be so done in order to secure the ends of justice which would be consistent with the exercise of jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. Petition dismissed.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Sanction under Section 197 of Cr.P.C.
2. Sanction for Prosecution under Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act.
3. Prevention of abuse of process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice.

Detailed Analysis:

I. Sanction under Section 197 of Cr.P.C.
The petitioner, a Member of the Legislative Assembly and Member of the Mysore Urban Development Authority (MUDA), was accused of obtaining a site allotment through false declarations. The court evaluated whether the alleged acts were committed while acting in the discharge of official duty, which is essential for requiring sanction under Section 197 of Cr.P.C. The court cited precedents, emphasizing that criminal conspiracy or misconduct by a public servant is not part of official duties, hence, no sanction is necessary. The court concluded that the petitioner's actions did not warrant sanction under Section 197 of Cr.P.C. and rejected the petitioner's contention on this ground.

II. Sanction for Prosecution under Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act
The petitioner argued that sanction for prosecution was required under the amended Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 2018, which applies retrospectively. The court analyzed the timeline, noting the charge sheet was filed before the amendment, and the cognizance was taken post-amendment. The court held that the amendment, which requires sanction for prosecution even after retirement, is prospective. It emphasized the principle that procedural amendments imposing new obligations are not retrospective unless explicitly stated. The court referred to the General Clauses Act, 1897, and various judgments, concluding that the amendment does not affect investigations or proceedings initiated before its enactment. Therefore, the court ruled that no sanction was required under the pre-amended Act, dismissing the petitioner's argument.

III. To Prevent Abuse of Process of Any Court or Otherwise to Secure the Ends of Justice
The trial court's decision to proceed without requiring sanction was upheld, though the reasoning was partially faulty. The court emphasized that the correct legal position is that the Speaker is the competent authority for sanctioning prosecution of elected representatives. Despite the flawed reasoning, the court affirmed the trial court's conclusion to proceed with the prosecution, citing the "Tipsy Coachman Doctrine," which allows for the affirmation of a correct judgment despite flawed reasoning. The court stressed that preventing abuse of the judicial process and securing the ends of justice warranted a full trial in this case.

Conclusion:
The court dismissed the petition, affirming the trial court's decision to proceed with the prosecution without requiring sanction under both Section 197 of Cr.P.C. and the pre-amended Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The court emphasized the principles of preventing abuse of process and securing the ends of justice, ensuring that the prosecution continues for a fair trial.