Special Judge's Order for Investigation Without Prior Sanction Deemed Unsustainable by High Court
In a significant judgment, the Kerala High Court has set aside an order by a Special Judge (Vigilance) and the resultant FIR against a public servant, emphasizing the necessity of prior sanction under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The court ruled that a Special Judge cannot order an investigation under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C) against a public servant without obtaining prior sanction under Section 19(1) of the said Act.
The case, titled "Anaz M.A. v. State of Kerala," was presided over by Justice A. Badharudeen. The petitioner, Anaz M.A., challenged the order issued by the Enquiry Commissioner & Special Judge (Vigilance) Muvattupuzha, which forwarded a complaint for investigation to the Deputy Superintendent of Police, VACB, Ernakulam, leading to the registration of an FIR.
The petitioner argued that the order and subsequent FIR were unsustainable as they contravened the legal requirement of obtaining sanction before proceeding against a public servant. This position was supported by previous judgments, including "Ajith Kumar M.R v. State of Kerala" and "Anil Kumar v. M.K. Aiyappa," which clearly state the necessity of sanction under Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act before any investigation can be initiated under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C.
The Special Public Prosecutor did not contest this legal stance, acknowledging the precedent set by earlier judgments. However, the counsel for the complainant contended that since the FIR was already registered, the court should not interfere.
In its decision, the High Court reiterated the importance of adhering to statutory requirements, emphasizing that the absence of a sanction renders any such investigative order and the resultant FIR legally untenable. The court allowed the Original Petition, quashing both the order by the Special Judge and the FIR. It directed that the complaint be returned to the pre-cognizance stage, allowing the complainant an opportunity to obtain the necessary sanction from the competent authority.
This judgment underscores the judiciary's commitment to ensuring procedural compliance, particularly in cases involving public servants, thereby safeguarding against unwarranted investigations.
Bottom Line:
A Special Judge (Vigilance) cannot order an investigation under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C against a public servant without obtaining prior sanction under Section 19(1) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
Statutory provision(s): Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, Section 19(1) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988
Anaz M.A. v. State of Kerala, (Kerala) : Law Finder Doc Id # 2838792
