TMI Blog2013 (10) TMI 1428X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... PREME COURT] followed. In the result the principles laid down by the Court in the above referred judgments apply to the facts of the present case. Therefore, no error was found in the order passed by the High Court. The appeals lack merit and are accordingly dismissed. - CRIMINAL APPEAL NOS. 1590-1591 OF 2013 (@ Special Leave Petition (Criminal) Nos.6652-6653 of 2013) - - - Dated:- 1-10-2013 - K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN A.K. SIKRI JJ. J U D G M E N T K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN, J. 1. Leave granted. 2. We are in this case concerned with the question whether the Special Judge/Magistrate is justified in referring a private complaint made under Section 200 Cr.P.C. for investigation by the Deputy Superintendent of Police Karnataka Lokayukta, in exercise of powers conferred under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. without the production of a valid sanction order under Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. 3. The Appellants herein filed a private complaint under Section 200 of Cr.P.C. before the Additional City Civil and Special Judge for Prevention of Corruption on 9.10.2012. The complaint of the Appellants was that the first respondent with mala fide intent ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rivate complaint unless the same was accompanied by a sanction order, irrespective of whether the Court was acting at a pre-cognizance stage or the post-cognizance stage, if the complaint pertains to a public servant who is alleged to have committed offences in discharge of his official duties. The High Court, therefore, quashed the order passed by the Special Judge, as well as the complaint filed against the appellant. Aggrieved by the same, as already stated, the complainants have come up with these appeals. 6. We have heard the senior counsel on either side. Shri Kailash Vasdev, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellants, submitted that if the interpretation of the High Court is accepted, then the provisions of Section 19(3) of the PC Act would be rendered otiose. Learned senior counsel also submitted that, going through the above mentioned provision, the requirement of sanction under Section 19(1) is only procedural in nature and the same can be cured at a subsequent stage of the proceedings even after filing of the charge-sheet and hence the requirement of previous sanction is merely directory and not mandatory. Reliance was placed on the judgments of this ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g jurisdiction under Section 156(3) and held that where a jurisdiction is exercised on a complaint filed in terms of Section 156(3) or Section 200 Cr.P.C., the Magistrate is required to apply his mind, in such a case, the Special Judge/Magistrate cannot refer the matter under Section 156(3) against a public servant without a valid sanction order. The application of mind by the Magistrate should be reflected in the order. The mere statement that he has gone through the complaint, documents and heard the complainant, as such, as reflected in the order, will not be sufficient. After going through the complaint, documents and hearing the complainant, what weighed with the Magistrate to order investigation under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., should be reflected in the order, though a detailed expression of his views is neither required nor warranted. We have already extracted the order passed by the learned Special Judge which, in our view, has stated no reasons for ordering investigation. 9. We will now examine whether the order directing investigation under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. would amount to taking cognizance of the offence, since a contention was raised that the expression cogniz ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... It is necessary to mention here that taking cognizance of an offence is not the same thing as issuance of process. Cognizance is taken at the initial stage when the Magistrate applies his judicial mind to the facts mentioned in a complaint or to a police report or upon information received from any other person that an offence has been committed. The issuance of process is at a subsequent stage when after considering the material placed before it the court decides to proceed against the offenders against whom a prima facie case is made out. 10. The meaning of the said expression was also considered by this Court in Subramanium Swamy case (supra). The judgments referred to herein above clearly indicate that the word cognizance has a wider connotation and not merely confined to the stage of taking cognizance of the offence. When a Special Judge refers a complaint for investigation under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., obviously, he has not taken cognizance of the offence and, therefore, it is a pre-cognizance stage and cannot be equated with post cognizance stage. When a Special Judge takes cognizance of the offence on a complaint presented under Section 200 Cr.P.C. and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tate Government, of that Government; (c) in the case of any other person, of the authority competent to remove him from his office. Section 19(3) of the PC Act also has some relevance; the operative portion of the same is extracted hereunder: Section 19(3) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974)- (a) no finding, sentence or order passed by a special judge shall be reversed or altered by a court in appeal, confirmation or revision on the ground of absence of, or any error, omission or irregularity in the sanction required under sub-section (1), unless in the opinion of that Court, a failure of justice has in fact been occasioned thereby; (b) xxx xxx xxx (c) xxx xxx xxx 13. Learned senior counsel appearing for the appellants raised the contention that the requirement of sanction is only procedural in nature and hence, directory or else Section 19(3) would be rendered otiose. We find it difficult to accept that contention. Sub-section (3) of Section 19 has an object to achieve, which applies in circumstances where a Special Judge has already rendered a finding, sentence or order. In s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
