T.R. SRINIVASAN Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE above Revision is filed challenging the order passed in Crl. M.P. No. 422 of 1997 on the file of the Special Judge, Chennai dated 10.7.1997.

(2.) THE petitioner is the Accused No.3 in C.C. No. 4 of 1997, who was prosecuted by the complainant for the alleged offence punishable under S. 120 -B of the Indian Penal Code, read with S. 13(2), and S. 13(l)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act 1988 and under Ss. 240 and 109 of I.P.C., etc. According to the petitioner, he was summoned by the Sessions Court to answer the charges mentioned therein and he appeared before the Court on 21.12.1996. He was furnished with copies of the documents pursuant to S. 207 Criminal Procedural Code. The petitioner filed an objection in Crl. M.P. No. 422 of 1997, under S. 239 Crl. P.C. with a prayer to exonerate him of all the charges leveled against him. In the objection it is stated that, under S. 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, the sanction should be obtained from the Central Government before taking cognizance of the offence by the lower Court. The petitioner being the member of the Indian Administrative Service, he can be removed only by the order of the Central Government. Therefore, the Central Government is the Sanctioning Authority. But, no sanction was accorded and filed before the lower Court on the date on which the lower Court took cognizance of the offence and the sanction was obtained only subsequently, which will not cure the defect. On the above basis the petitioner filed the above objection.

(3.) THE learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that in view of S. 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1988, the Courts are prohibited from taking cognizance of the offence punishable under Ss. 7, 10, 11, 13 and 15 of the said Act without proper order of sanction from the Government. According to him, the Principal Sessions Judge took cognizance of the offence on 19.11.1996 and issued summons. Admittedly, on 19.11.1996 no sanction was ordered by the Central Government to take cognizance of the case against the petitioner for the offence punishable under S. 13(l)(d) and 13(2) etc., of the said Act. Though it was subsequently after transfer to the Special Court, the Special Court issued summons, the respondent cannot take advantage of the fact of issue of summons by the Special Court, in view of the specific provision that no Court shall take cognizance of the offence without sanction from the concerned government. On that basis the learned counsel has submitted that the petitioner has to be exonerated with respect to all the offences. In support of his submission, the learned counsel has relied on number of judgments.