Prevention Of Corruption Act - HC Cannot Reverse Special Court Findings On Validity Of Sanction Unless It Finds That Failure Of Justice Had Occurred: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court observed that the High Court cannot reverse the findings recorded by the Special Court in Corruption Cases on the validity of sanction, without recording any opinion as to how a failure of justice had in fact been occasioned to the accused.In this case, the Karnataka High Court allowed a petition by discharging the accused from the offences charged under Section 13(1) (e) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 on the ground that the sanction accorded to prosecute the respondent-accused by the Government was illegal and without jurisdiction.The issues raised in appeal by the State were: (i) Whether the High Court in exercise of its powers under Section 482 of CrPC could have discharged the respondent-accused from the charges levelled against him for the offences under Section 13(1)(e) punishable under Section 13(2) of the said Act, despite the fact that the accused had not pressed for his second application for discharge by submitting the Memo dated 02.12.2014 and despite the fact that after framing of the charge by the Special Court on 23.12.2014, the trial had proceeded further and the prosecution had examined 17 witnesses in support of its case? (ii) Whether the High Court in the criminal petition filed under Section 482 of the CrPC could reverse the findings recorded by the Special Court with regard to the validity of sanction, ignoring the bar contained in sub-section (3) read with subsection (4) of Section 19 of the said Act?The court noted that neither the accused had pleaded nor the High Court opined whether any failure of justice had occasioned to the respondent, on account of error if any, occurred in granting the sanction by the authority. Referring to Section 19(3) and (4), which are pari materia with Section 465(1) of CrPC, the bench of Justices Aniruddha Bose and Bela M. Trivedi observed:"The combined reading of sub-section (3) and (4) of Section 19 makes it clear that notwithstanding anything contained in the Code, no finding, sentence or order passed by the Special Judge shall be reversed or altered by a Court in appeal, confirmation or revision on the ground of, the absence of, or any error, omission or irregularity in the sanction required under sub-section (1), unless in the opinion of the Court, a failure of justice has in fact been occasioned thereby. sub-section (4) further postulates that in determining under subsection (3) whether the absence of, or any error, omission or irregularity in the sanction has occasioned, or resulted in failure of justice, the Court shall have regard to the fact whether the objection could and should have been raised at an earlier stage in the proceedings. The explanation to sub-section (4) further provides that for the purpose of Section 19, error includes “competency of the authority to grant sanction”. Thus, it is clear from the language employed in sub-section (3) of Section 19 that the said sub-section has application to the proceedings before the Court in appeal, confirmation or revision, and not to the proceedings before the Special Judge. The said sub-section (3) clearly forbids the court in appeal, confirmation or revision, the interference with the order passed by the Special Judge on the ground that the sanction was bad, save and except in cases where the appellate or revisional court finds that the failure of justice had occurred by such invalidity."The court also added that an interlocutory application seeking discharge in the midst of trial would also not be maintainable."Once the cognizance was taken by the Special Judge and the charge was framed against the accused, the trial could neither have been stayed 16 nor scuttled in the midst of it in view of Section 19(3) of the said Act. In the instant case, though the issue of validity of sanction was raised at the earlier point of time, the same was not pressed for. The only stage open to the respondent-accused in that situation was to raise the said issue at the final arguments in the trial in accordance with law", the bench said while allowing the appeal.Case detailsState of Karnataka Lokayukta Police vs S. Subbegowda | 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 595 | 2023 INSC 669HeadnotesPrevention of Corruption Act, 1988 ; Section 19(3), 19(4) - Findings recorded by the Special Judge could not have been and should not have been reversed or altered by the High Court in the petition filed by the accused challenging the said order of the Special Judge, in view of the specific bar contained in sub-section (3) of Section 19, and that too without recording any opinion as to how a failure of justice had in fact been occasioned to the respondent-accused as contemplated in the said sub-section (3). (Para 12-14)Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 ; Section 19 - The question with regard to the validity of such sanction should be raised at the earliest stage of the proceedings, however could be raised at the subsequent stage of the trial also - The stages of proceedings at which an...

Prevention Of Corruption Act - HC Cannot Reverse Special Court Findings On Validity Of Sanction Unless It Finds That Failure Of Justice Had Occurred: Supreme Court

Ashok KM

Tags