9911796707
TMI Blog2005 (11) TMI 502X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... bservations made by this Court in Raghubans Dubey vs. State of Bihar [ 1967 (1) TMI 83 - SUPREME COURT] were also made in that context. The Prevention of Corruption Act is a special statute and as the preamble shows this Act has been enacted to consolidate and amend the law relating to the prevention of corruption and for matters connected therewith. Here, the principle expressed in the maxim generalia specialibus non derogant would apply which means that if a special provision has been made on a certain matter, that matter is excluded from the general provisions. Therefore, the provisions of Section 19 of the Act will have an overriding effect over the general provisions contained in Section 190 or 319, CrPC. A Special Judge while trying a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... id challenge to the aforesaid order as well. 2. It is necessary to mention the basic facts giving rise to the present appeals. On the complaint made by the wife, a case was registered against Parvinder Singh @ Iqbal Singh under Section 406/498-A, IPC. On 27-1-2000 Parvinder Singh @ Iqbal Singh gave a complaint to the SSP Barnala alleging that on 23-1-2000, Jasbir Singh, ASI and a Home Guard came to his house on a scooter and forcibly took him to the Police Station Barnala. He was beaten and tortured and was subjected to third degree methods. Some of his relatives, namely, Jarnail Singh, Sukhdev Singh, Sadhu Singh Grewal and Sukhdev Singh Virk came to the police station and requested the police personnel not to beat or torture him. It was fu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... impugned order dated 3-7-2002 and a direction has been issued to summon Dilawar Singh and try him in accordance with law. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant had submitted that no sanction had been granted under Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, for prosecution of the appellant under Section 13(2) of the said Act and in absence of sanction, the appellant could not be summoned to face the trial. Learned counsel for the respondent-Parvinder Singh has submitted that the language used in the opening part of the sub-section (1) of Section 19 is that No Court shall take cognizance of an offence punishable under Sections 7, 10, 11, 13 ......... and in the present case cognizance of the offence had already been taken by the Spe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... el for the appellant is well founded. Sub-section (1) of Section 19 of the Act, which is relevant for the controversy in dispute, reads as under : 19. Previous sanction necessary for prosecution.- (1) No court shall take cognizance of an offence punishable under sections 7, 10, 11, 13 and 15 alleged to have been committed by a public servant, except with the previous sanction,- (a) in the case of a person who is employed in connection with the affairs of the Union and is not removable from his office save by or with the sanction of the Central Government, of that Government; (b) in the case of a person who is employed in connection with the affairs of a State and is not removable from his office save by or with sanction of the State Governm ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cannot take cognizance of the offences mentioned therein without sanction of the appropriate authority. In enacting the above section, the legislature thought of providing a reasonable protection to public servants in the discharge of their official functions so that they may perform their duties and obligations undeterred by vexatious and unnecessary prosecutions. 6. In Jaswant Singh vs. State of Punjab, AIR 1958 SC 124, sanction had been granted for prosecution of the accused for an offence under Section 5(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, but no sanction had been granted for his prosecution under Section 5(1)(a) of the said Act. It was held that no cognizance could be taken for prosecution of the accused under Section 5(1) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... provisions. (See Venkateshwar Rao vs. Govt. of Andhra Pradesh, AIR 1966 SC 828; State of Bihar vs. Yogendra Singh, AIR 1982 SC 882 and Maharashtra State Board of Secondary Education vs. Paritosh Bhupesh Kumar Sheth, AIR 1984 SC 1543). Therefore, the provisions of Section 19 of the Act will have an overriding effect over the general provisions contained in Section 190 or 319, Cr.P.C. A Special Judge while trying an offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, cannot summon another person and proceed against him in the purported exercise of power under Section 319, Cr.P.C. if no sanction has been granted by the appropriate authority for prosecution of such a person as the existence of a sanction is sine qua non for taking cognizance ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
