K KARUNAKARAN Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment rendered by a learned Single Judge of the Kerala High Court holding that since the appellant was not holding office which he allegedly abused, at the time of taking cognizance, no sanction was necessary.

(2.) Primary stand in this appeal is that the view expressed in R.S. Nayak v. A.R. Antulay (1992) 1 SCC 279 is not correct and fresh look is necessary as the observations made are per incuriam. An additional point has been raised that the prosecution is the outcome of mala fides and varying stands taken at different stages clearly indicate the fact that the appellant is the victim of personal and political rivalry with leaders of some political parties.

(3.) Learned Counsel for the respondent-State on the other hand submitted that the decision in R.S. Nayaks case (supra) cannot be said to be a case of per incuriam. Additionally, there is no mala fide involved. It is stated that even if for the sake of arguments it is conceded but not admitted that political reasons exist that cannot be a ground to quash the proceedings. In any event, the circumstances highlighted by the appellant to substantiate the plea of allegation cannot be taken note of.