2025 (4) TMI 1245 - SC - Indian Laws

Maintainability of second complaint - sanction required in view of amended Section 19 and newly inserted Section 17-A of the PC Act - applicability of Aiyappa s 2013 (10) TMI 1428 - SUPREME COURT judgment - HELD THAT - As for maintaining judicial discipline a coordinate bench of this Court has refrained from proceeding further in deciding the underlying issue Whether the bar of Section 19 of the PC Act would be applicable on exercise of power under Section 156 (3) of CrPC. which is under reference to a larger bench it is deemed appropriate to tag these petitions with the referred matter Manju Surana vs. Sunil Arora Ors. 2018 (3) TMI 1434 - SUPREME COURT . The registry is directed to place these matters before the Hon ble Chief Justice of India for appropriate orders.

Summary

The core legal questions considered by the Court arise from the interplay between the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (PC Act), particularly sections 17A and 19, and the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.), especially section 156(3). The issues include:

I. The relevant considerations under Section 17A of the PC Act that the appropriate authority or government must evaluate before granting approval for initiating any enquiry or investigation by the police.

II. Whether the considerations under Section 17A differ fundamentally from those a Magistrate applies under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C., and if so, whether this precludes the Magistrate from fulfilling the object of Section 17A.

III. Whether a Magistrate's application of mind under Section 156(3) can render the requirement of prior approval under Section 17A redundant, or if a police officer remains inhibited from investigation without such approval despite a Magistrate's direction.

IV. In the context of private complaints, whether Section 19 of the PC Act, particularly the First Proviso, requires sanction only after the Magistrate completes examination under Sections 200 and 202 of the Cr.P.C., and whether the Magistrate can proceed under Chapter XV without prior sanction.

V. Whether the Magistrate must consider statements of complainant and witnesses or conduct a magisterial inquiry under Sections 200 and 202 before taking cognizance under Section 19, particularly in light of the precedent that clarifies the meaning of "taking cognizance."

VI. Whether the First Proviso to Section 19 is detached from the substantive part of subsection (1) of the same provision.

VII. Whether the procedural requirements introduced by Section 17A and the amended Section 19 are retrospectively applicable or are substantive changes that should apply prospectively, considering their interlinkage with substantive amendments to Sections 7, 11, 13, and 15 of the PC Act.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

Issue I: Relevant Considerations under Section 17A of the PC Act

The Court examined the statutory language of Section 17A, which mandates prior approval by the appropriate authority or government before initiating any enquiry or investigation against public servants. The legislative intent is to prevent frivolous or vexatious investigations and protect public servants from undue harassment.

Precedents emphasize that the authority must apply its mind to the material on record and consider the nature of allegations, the gravity of the offence, and the prima facie evidence before granting approval. The Court underscored that Section 17A is not a mere formality but a substantive safeguard requiring careful evaluation.

The Court noted that the approval process under Section 17A is designed to balance the need for accountability with protection against arbitrary investigations.

Issue II and III: Comparison of Considerations under Section 17A and Section 156(3) Cr.P.C.

The Court analyzed whether the considerations under Section 17A differ fundamentally from those a Magistrate applies under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., which empowers a Magistrate to direct investigation upon receiving information about a cognizable offence.

It was held that the Magistrate, while directing investigation under Section 156(3), does not take cognizance of the offence in the strict legal sense and thus does not apply the same level of scrutiny or consideration as required under Section 17A. The Magistrate's role is limited to assessing whether the information discloses a cognizable offence to justify investigation, not to evaluate sanction or approval requirements.

Therefore, the Court concluded that the requirement of prior approval under Section 17A is not rendered redundant by a Magistrate's direction under Section 156(3). The police remain inhibited from investigation without such approval, even if directed by the Magistrate.

This interpretation preserves the legislative intent behind Section 17A, ensuring that investigations against public servants proceed only with prior approval, irrespective of Magistrate's directions.

Issue IV and V: Sanction under Section 19 of the PC Act in Private Complaints and Magistrate's Role

The Court examined the First Proviso to Section 19, which contemplates that sanction is required after the Magistrate completes examination of the complainant and witnesses or conducts a magisterial inquiry under Sections 200 and 202 of the Cr.P.C.

Relying on the precedent from the 1950 decision, the Court emphasized that "taking cognizance" under Section 190 Cr.P.C. involves the Magistrate applying his mind to the complaint for the purpose of proceeding under Sections 200 and 202, not merely ordering investigation under Section 156(3).

The Court held that sanction under Section 19 is necessary before the Magistrate can take cognizance in the substantive sense, i.e., before proceeding to trial or issuing process. However, the Magistrate may direct investigation under Section 156(3) without prior sanction, but such investigation cannot proceed without approval under Section 17A or sanction under Section 19 where applicable.

The Court clarified that the First Proviso to Section 19 is not detached from subsection (1) but complements it by defining the procedural stage at which sanction becomes necessary.

Issue VI: Relationship Between First Proviso and Subsection (1) of Section 19

The Court rejected any notion that the First Proviso is detached from the substantive provision. Instead, it held that the proviso qualifies the circumstances under which sanction is required and the procedural steps the Magistrate must undertake before granting cognizance.

Issue VII: Retrospective Applicability of Sections 17A and 19 Amendments

The Court noted that the amendments to Sections 7, 11, 13, 15, 17A, and 19 of the PC Act were introduced simultaneously by the 2018 Amendment Act, indicating an intrinsic interlinkage.

It was observed that these changes are not merely procedural but substantive, altering the scope and conditions for investigation and prosecution of offences under the PC Act.

Consequently, the Court opined that these provisions should apply prospectively and not retrospectively. However, it left open the question of whether certain safeguards or clarificatory aspects of the amendments might have retrospective effect, especially if beneficial to the accused.

Additional Findings and Treatment of Competing Arguments

The petitioner relied heavily on the precedent that a Magistrate cannot order investigation without prior sanction under the PC Act, emphasizing the protective purpose of Sections 17A and 19. The respondents countered by citing older precedents holding that Magistrates do not take cognizance while directing investigation under Section 156(3), thus no sanction is required at that stage.

The Court acknowledged the conflict and noted that the matter is already referred to a larger Bench for authoritative resolution, particularly on whether the bar of Section 19 applies to investigations ordered under Section 156(3).

In the interest of judicial discipline, the Court refrained from deciding the disputed issue and directed that the present matters be tagged with the larger Bench reference.

The Court also addressed the maintainability of the second complaint, holding that if the first complaint was dismissed on technical grounds without addressing merits, a second complaint may be maintainable.

Regarding offences under the Indian Penal Code (IPC), the Court noted that sanction under Section 197 Cr.P.C. is required even if the accused is no longer in office.

Significant Holdings

"While directing for an investigation and forwarding the complaint therefor, the Magistrate is not actually taking cognizance."

"The requirement of prior approval under Section 17A of the PC Act is not rendered redundant by a Magistrate's direction under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C."

"Sanction under Section 19 of the PC Act is necessary before the Magistrate can take cognizance in the substantive sense, i.e., before proceeding to trial or issuing process."

"The amendments to Sections 17A and 19 of the PC Act are substantive and should be applied prospectively."

"If the first complaint is dismissed on technical grounds without touching merits, a second complaint is maintainable."

"Judicial discipline requires that matters involving conflicting precedents on the applicability of sanction under Section 19 during investigation under Section 156(3) be referred to a larger Bench."

The Court's final determination was to refrain from deciding the contentious issue of whether sanction under Section 19 is required before investigation directed by a Magistrate under Section 156(3), pending the larger Bench's decision. The Court directed tagging the present petitions with the referred matter and placed the matter before the Chief Justice for appropriate orders.