Is 17A PC Act Sanction Necessary When Probe Was Ordered Under 156(3) CrPC? Supreme Court Tags Yediyurappa's Case With Pending Reference

A two-judge bench of the Supreme Court on Monday, in the case concerning former Karnataka Chief Minister BS Yediyurappa, stated that it was refraining from deciding the issue regarding the need for a sanction under Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act when a Magistrate has ordered investigation under Section 156(3) CrPC, since the said issue is already a subject matter of a pending reference.Therefore, the bench comprising Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice Manoj Misra, directed that Yediyurappa's matter be placed before the Chief Justice of India for being tagged along with the pending reference.The two-judge bench had reserved judgment in the case on April 10, after an elaborate hearing for days. However, during the course of preparing the judgment, the bench noted that a co-ordinate bench, in April 2024, on the very same issue regarding S.17A PC Act- S.156(3) CrPC, had chosen to refrain from passing a judgment and instead highlighted the need for an early the reference pending since 2018 in Manju Surana v. Sunil Arora.In view of this, the present bench also chose to follow the same path, as a matter of judicial discipline. The bench observed in its order today :"While preparing the judgment, we came across an order of this Court dated 16 April, 2024, passed by a coordinate bench of this Court in SLP(Crl)...As a matter of judicial discipline, the coordinate bench of this court refrained from proceeding further and deciding the underlined issues under reference to a larger bench. We deem it appropriate to tag these petitions to the referred matter Manju Surana v. Sunil Arora. Registry is directed to place these matters before hon'ble Chief Justice of India."Justice Misra orally added that the reference to the CJI is only on the grounds of judicial propriety. While reserving the judgment, the Court had framed the following issues :1. What are the relevant considerations as contemplated by Section 17A of the PC Act, which the appropriate authority or government is expected to look into before the grant of approval for initiation of any enquiry, inquiry, or investigation by the police?2. Whether the considerations which weigh with the appropriate authority or government while granting approval under Section 17A of the PC Act are fundamentally so different from the one that a Magistrate is ordinarily expected to apply while passing an order under Section 156(3) of the the Cr.P.C so as to preclude the Magistrate from fulfilling the object underlying Section 17A of the PC Act?3. Could it be said that a police officer, despite a direction under Section 156(3) by a Magistrate, would remain inhibited from conducting any enquiry, inquiry, or investigation without prior approval as required by Section 17A? If yes, how does the standard of application of mind by the appropriate authority differ from that of the Magistrate?The Court has identified the issues for consideration in Section 19:1. Whether the three conditions envisaged under the First Proviso of Section 19, namely that a complaint has been filed as per Part (i) and that the court has not only not dismissed such complaint but also explicitly directed the obtainment of sanction as per Part (ii), necessarily implies that it is open for the Magistrate to proceed in terms of Chapter XV more particularly under Section(s) 200, 202 and 203 of CrPC even without the grant of sanction under Section 19 of the PC Act? If so, whether such an interpretation is limited only for the purpose of “cognizance” under Section 19 of the PC Act?2. Whether, Part (ii) of the First Proviso to Section 19 of the PC Act, more particularly the expression “the court has not dismissed the complaint under section 203” necessarily envisages that the Magistrate ought to have first considered the statements of the complainant and the witnesses(s) and / or of any magisterial inquiry in terms of Section(s) 200 and 202 of the Cr.P.C.? Or could it be said that Magistrate takes cognizance only after deciding not to dismiss the complaint under Section 203 especially in light of the decision in Legal Remembrancer v. Abani Kumar Banerji (1950)3. Whether it could be said that the First Proviso to Section 19 of the PC Act is detached from the substantive part contained in sub-section (1) of the said provision?4. Whether the requirements introduced by Section 17A and the amended Section 19 of the PC Act could be said to be retrospectively applicable?Case Details: B.S YEDDIYURAPPA v. A ALAM PASHA & ORS.|Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No.520/2021 Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 450Click here to read the order

Is 17A PC Act Sanction Necessary When Probe Was Ordered Under 156(3) CrPC? Supreme Court Tags Yediyurappa's Case With Pending Reference

Gursimran Kaur Bakshi

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Is 17A PC Act Sanction Necessary When Probe Was Ordered Under 156(3) CrPC? Supreme Court Tags Yediyurappa's Case With Pending Reference

Gursimran Kaur Bakshi

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers