JHANCY MARGARET, SANJANA AND E.S. PRASANNA Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA THROUGH UNDER SECRETARY CRIME BRANCH HOME DEPARTMENT GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA, PSI MADIKERI RURAL P.S. AND B.G. RAJESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ON 6.12.2011 second respondent lodged a complaint with the first respondent police alleging that petitioners are all Jehovah's witnesses, a Christian denomination and are involved in converting Hindus to their religion by offering some monetary benefits, hurted the religious feelings of Hindus by use of threat. This complaint came to be registered in Cr. No. 212/2011 for the offences punishable under Section 295A, 506 r/w 34 IPC. After investigation charge sheet is filed. Petitioners being aggrieved by filing of charge sheet and the sanction order dated 6.7.2012 are before this court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of the proceedings. The main offence against the petitioners is under Section 295A of IPC. A reading of this provision specifies that whoever, with deliberate and malicious intention of outraging the religious feelings or insults or attempts to insult the religious beliefs of others shall be punished with imprisonment for three years or with fine or both. Section 196 of Cr.P.C. specifies that no court shall take cognizance of offence for the offences punishable under Section 295A, IPC except with previous sanction of the Central Government or of the State Government. The Supreme Court in ., AIR 1997 SC 3400 explained the scope and validity of a sanction order as under: 19. Since the validity of "Sanction" depends on the applicability of mind by the sanctioning authority to the facts of the case as also the material and evidence collected during investigation, it necessarily follows, that the sanctioning authority has to apply its own independent mind for the generation of genuine satisfaction whether prosecution has to be sanctioned or not. The mind of the sanctioning authority should not be under pressure from any quarter nor should any external force be acting upon it to take decision one way or the other. Since the discretion to grant or not to grant sanction vests absolutely in the sanctioning authority, its discretion should be shown to have not been affected by any extraneous consideration. If is shown that the sanctioning authority was unable to apply its independent mind for any reason whatsoever or was under an obligation or compulsion or constraint to grant the sanction, the order will be had for the reason that the discretion of the authority "not to sanction" was taken away and it was compelled to act mechanically to sanction the prosecution.

(2.) THEREFORE the validity of sanction order depends on the application of mind by the sanctioning authority to the facts of the case as also the material and evidence collected during the investigation. In the instant case the investigating agency recorded the statement of 13 witnesses, drawn mahazar, seized some materials at item 1 to 30. Annexure -A is the order of sanction under Section 196 Cr.P.C. A perusal of the impugned order of sanction do not specify that the sanctioning authority independently applied his mind to the facts, the evidence and the material collected during the course of investigation. There is no reference to any of the statement of witnesses nor the material collected during the course of investigation in the impugned order of sanction. Mechanically the sanctioning authority passed the impugned order of sanction with an observation that from the investigation a prima -facie case is made out. This casual approach by the sanctioning authority is contrary to the mandatory requirement under Section 196 Cr.P.C. On this ground the impugned order of sanction is liable to be quashed. For the reasons stated above, the following: ORDER