Please Log in / Register to access the full text of this judgment and the entire database
(2024) Law Today Live Doc. Id. 19378
Decided on: 22.07.2024
For Petitioner(s):
Mr. Sunil Kumar, Sr. Adv., Mr. Himanshu Shekhar, AOR, Mr. Parth Shekhar, Adv., Ms. Ambali Vedasen, Adv., Mr. Shubham Singh, Adv., Mr. Vijay Singh, Adv., Mr. Arvind Kumar Tomar, Adv., Mr. Nikhil Kumar, Adv., Mr. Md Sontu Mia, Adv., Mr. Sudip Patra, Adv., Ms. Rachna Ranjan, Adv., Ms. Monica Haseja, Adv., Ms. Kamlika Samadder, Adv., Mr. Rajat Sinha Roy, Adv., Mr. Vishal Prasad, Adv., Mr. Gyanesh Kumar Maheshwari, Adv., Mr. Rajat Mishra, Adv.
For Respondent(s):
Mr. Suryaprakash V. Raju, A.S.G. (N/P), Mr. Mukesh Kumar Maroria, AOR, Mr. Zoheb Hossain, Adv., Mr. Annam Venkatesh, Adv., Mr. Ashwani Kumar, Adv., Mr. Arkaj Kumar, Adv., Mr. Purnendu Bajpai, Adv.
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (49 of 1988), Section 19(1) – Cognizance by trail court – Sanction from competent authority – Requirement of -- Trial Court was not justified and correct in law in taking cognizance in the absence of sanction by the competent authority -- Order taking cognizance set aside qua the appellant.
(Para 2, 3)
Cases referred:
1. Nanjappa v. State of Karnataka, (2015) 14 SCC 186.
ORDER
1. Leave granted.
2. In view of Section 19(1) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 19881 [1For short, “1988 Act”], we do not think that the trial Court was justified and correct in law in taking cognizance in the absence of sanction by the competent authority.
3. In view of the aforesaid position, the order taking cognizance dated 12.10.2020 is set aside qua the appellant, Shivendra Nath Verma. The effect thereof would be that the impugned judgment/order dated 19.06.2023, upholding the order of cognizance to that extent, is also set aside.
4. It is accepted and admitted at the Bar that the competent authority has granted sanction vide order dated 27.07.2022. It will be open to the Union of India/Central Bureau of Investigation to file the said sanction order before the competent Court, which may thereupon examine the case and, if deemed appropriate, take cognizance and proceed against the appellant, Shivendra Nath Verma.
5. During the course of hearing, it was argued on behalf of the appellant, Shivendra Nath Verma, that as the sanction dated 27.07.2022 was obtained after the order of cognizance dated 12.10.2020, the said sanction should be treated as void in view of the decision of this Court in Nanjappa v. State of Karnataka2 [2(2015) 14 SCC 186.] We are not inclined to accept the said submission. The ratio of the said decision is to the effect that the trial Court could not have taken cognizance in view of the bar contained in Section 19(1) of the 1988 Act. We do not think that the ratio of the aforesaid decision extends to invalidating the sanction granted, after the order taking cognizance was passed.
6. The appeal is allowed in the above terms.
7. We make it clear that the observations made in this order only pertain to the appellant, Shivendra Nath Verma. The order taking cognizance against the other accused, where sanction was not required, will not get affected.
8. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
Appeal allowed.
********