Prior Sanction For Entertaining Private Complaint Under PC Act? Supreme Court To Hear Former Karnataka CM Yediyurappa's Pleas From February 28

The Supreme Court on Friday (January 17) said it will begin hearing matters pertaining to cases registered under Prevention of Corruption Act (PC) involving former Karnataka Chief Minister B.S Yediyurappa from February 28.

In the 5 matters listed against the former Karnataka CM, arising out of five different factual backgrounds, the common issue raised is whether prior sanction would be required under the PC Act and whether the position of law post the 2018 amendment makes any difference. 

During the hearing, senior advocate Siddharth Luthra appearing for Yediyurappa submitted before a division bench of Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice Manoj Misra that a Private complaint was filed under PC Act when he was the Chief Minister of the state.

"This gets challenged and the High Court quashes it saying sanction (is) required," Luthra said. He submitted that thereafter a second complaint was filed in 2013 but the trial court dismissed it in 2016. He said that the high court while considering it in 2021, set it aside saying 'you were a public servant but you ceased to be one'.

"This happens in 2021 and the law has changed in 2018. Earlier law was that if your term has ended, the sanction was not required. The point is-could the second complaint at all be registered?," Luthra said. He further said that these were matters "arising from distinct facts" wherein some questions may remain the same. 

After hearing the matter for some time the court listed the batch for hearing on February 28. 

The common questions of law raised are:

1. Whether prior sanction under Section 19 of the PC Act is required before a private complaint is entertained?

2. Whether prior sanction under Section 17 of the PC Act is necessary at the stage of investigation? 

In SLP (Crl) 8675/2022 matter, a challenge has been made to the September 7, 2022, order of the Karnataka High Court dated 07.09.2022 which restored proceedings against Yediyurappa under charges of bribery under the PC Act. In this case, the question of law is whether prior sanction is required under the PC Act for a Magistrate to direct an investigation into the cognisance offences against a public servant under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. In this case, the petitioners have argued that since Section 17A was in place, added through the 2018 amendment, a sanction would be required. 

Alternatively, reliance has been put on Anil Kumar v. Ayyappa (2013), wherein it was held that a Magistrate cannot order investigation against a public servant in a corruption complaint if there is no sanction given by the Government.

Other cases pertains to forging company's letter hand to falsely indicate disinterest in the land and fabricate the seal and signature of the CA, withdrawing notification not to allot land to Respondent's company and allegedly for illegal monetary gain by diverting the project to another company (SLP (Crl) 520/2021);  identifying a land despite objection from officers and accordingly releasing land from acquisition proceedings by forfeiting service fees (SLP (Crl) 2753/2021); re-allotment of lands by the Government to safeguard their business interest after the said lands were earlier forfeited by private promoters and identification of land (SLP (Crl) 9361/2021) ; and the prosecution based on the report of the Controller and Auditor General of India relating to land acquisition, de-notification and allotment (SLP (Crl) 5333-47/2016).

Case Title:

B.S YEDDIYURAPPA v. A ALAM PASHA AND ORS., SLP(Crl) No. 520/2021; 

B.S. YEDIYURAPPA v. A. ALAM PASHA AND ORS., SLP(Crl) No. 2753/2021;

B.S. YEDDYURAPPA v THE STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ANR,  SLP(Crl) No. 9361/2021;

B.S. YEDIYURAPPA v. ABRAHAM T.J. SLP(Crl) No. 8675/2022 and 

STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ANR.v B.S. YEDDYURAPPA AND ANR., SLP(Crl) No. 5333-5347/2016

Click Here To Read/Download Order