P A MOHANDAS Vs. STATE OF KERALA
LAWS(SC)-2002-2-64
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Decided on
February 11,2002
P.A.MOHANDAS
Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF KERALA
Respondents
Cited Judgements :-
H M CAIRE VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(GAU)-2006-9-49] [REFERRED TO]HARENDRA NATH BHUYAN VS. STATE OF ASSAM [LAWS(GAU)-2005-6-30] [REFERRED TO]
YASHPAL KHANNA VS. STATE OF PUNJAB [LAWS(P&H)-2009-4-45] [REFERRED TO]
AKILA RAMACHANDRA PRASAD VS. STATE [LAWS(MAD)-2015-6-408] [REFERRED TO]
DEVASSIA KUZHUPPIL VS. STATE OF KERALA [LAWS(KER)-2007-1-445] [REFERRED TO]
G NAGARAJAN VS. STATE BY DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE [LAWS(MAD)-2010-3-507] [REFERRED TO]
PILLI SAMBASIVA RAO VS. STATE OF TELANGANA [LAWS(TLNG)-2022-4-68] [REFERRED TO]
K M RAMALINGAM VS. STATE [LAWS(MAD)-2008-6-563] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF KERALA VS. P V KRISHNAN [LAWS(KER)-2007-3-684] [REFERRED TO]
MANSUKHBHAI KANJIBHAI SHAH VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [LAWS(GJH)-2018-2-188] [REFERRED TO]
MD WAKIL VS. STATE OF JHARKHAND [LAWS(JHAR)-2020-7-38] [REFERRED TO]
KHANDUBHAI CHHANABHAI PATEL VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [LAWS(GJH)-2024-4-160] [REFERRED TO]
GIRISHBHAI ISHWARBHAI PATEL VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [LAWS(GJH)-2007-10-32] [REFERRED TO]
HARENDRA NATH BHUYAN VS. STATE OF ASSAM AND ORS. [LAWS(GAU)-2005-1-55] [REFERRED TO]
AJAY KUMAR SINHA VS. STATE OF BIHAR [LAWS(PAT)-2011-9-37] [REFERRED]
UMA SHANKAR PRASAD VS. STATE OF BIHAR [LAWS(PAT)-2012-6-95] [REFERRED]
PRIYA RANJAN KUMAR MEHTA VS. STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH DEPARTMENT [LAWS(PAT)-2012-3-96] [REFERRED TO]
TULSI RAM MISHRA VS. STATE OF PUNJAB [LAWS(P&H)-2023-9-21] [REFERRED TO]
PARENA SWARUP VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(SC)-2008-9-141] [REFERRED TO]
V.O.KUNJUKUNJU (DIED) VS. STATE OF KERALA [LAWS(KER)-2019-12-74] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF GUJARAT VS. DAHYABHAI BHIKHBHAI THAKKAR [LAWS(GJH)-2014-7-270] [REFERRED TO]
SRI LANKA VENKATA SUBRAHMANYAM VS. THE STATE OF TELANGANA., REP. BY SPECIAL PP OF CBI, HYDERABAD [LAWS(APH)-2018-1-43] [REFERRED TO]
K.M. REGHULADHARAN VS. THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, VIGILANCE AND ANTI CORRUPTION BUREAU, KANNUR AND ORS. [LAWS(KER)-2021-2-31] [REFERRED TO]
JUDGEMENT
-
(1.)Leave granted.
(2.)The appellant is being prosecuted under the provisions of the prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short "the Act"). The High Court refused to entertain the plea of lack of sanction for prosecution by the competent authority on the ground that it would tantamount to review of the earlier order and the Court does not possess the power to review the earlier order.
(3.)Under Section 19 of the Act, no court can take cognizance of an offence punishable under Sections 7, 10, 11, 13 and 15 alleged to have been committed by a public servant, except with the previous sanction of the authority competent to remove the person concerned. In the case in hand, the secretary (Vigilance) appears to have accorded sanction to prosecute. The appellant's case is that the Secretary (Vigilance) was authorised to grant sanction only on 23-4-1994 and there is no order of the State Government making the Secretary (Vigilance) competent to accord sanction prior to the said date. The learned counsel appearing for the State is not in a position to refute the aforesaid contention and, in fact, is not able to produce any document which confers power on the Secretary (Vigilance) to accord sanction prior to 23-4-1994. The sanction in the present case was given prior to the aforesaid date. The date on which the sanction appears to have been given, the authority concerned had no jurisdiction and, therefore, there is an embargo on the court's power to take cognizance for non-compliance of section 19 of the Act. We accordingly quash the proceeding.
(2.)The appellant is being prosecuted under the provisions of the prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short "the Act"). The High Court refused to entertain the plea of lack of sanction for prosecution by the competent authority on the ground that it would tantamount to review of the earlier order and the Court does not possess the power to review the earlier order.
(3.)Under Section 19 of the Act, no court can take cognizance of an offence punishable under Sections 7, 10, 11, 13 and 15 alleged to have been committed by a public servant, except with the previous sanction of the authority competent to remove the person concerned. In the case in hand, the secretary (Vigilance) appears to have accorded sanction to prosecute. The appellant's case is that the Secretary (Vigilance) was authorised to grant sanction only on 23-4-1994 and there is no order of the State Government making the Secretary (Vigilance) competent to accord sanction prior to the said date. The learned counsel appearing for the State is not in a position to refute the aforesaid contention and, in fact, is not able to produce any document which confers power on the Secretary (Vigilance) to accord sanction prior to 23-4-1994. The sanction in the present case was given prior to the aforesaid date. The date on which the sanction appears to have been given, the authority concerned had no jurisdiction and, therefore, there is an embargo on the court's power to take cognizance for non-compliance of section 19 of the Act. We accordingly quash the proceeding.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.