Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 819 (MP)

Ashok Sharma v. State of M. P.

2014-07-14

B.D.RATHI, S.K.GANGELE

body2014
JUDGMENT 1. Petitioner has filed this application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 against the order dated 07.01.2011 passed by the Special Judge (Prevention of Corruption Act), Guna (M.P.). 2. The private complaint was filed against the petitioner for lodging the offences related to the following Sections: 3. Under Sections 166, 167, 201, 409, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120B/34 of IPC, under Sections 11, 13(1) and (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and under the provisions of the Madhya Pradesh Vinirdishta Bhrashta Acharan Nivaran Adhiniyam, 1982. 4. The Special Court vide impugned order directed the Superintendent of Police, Lokayukt Organization, to conduct an enquiry and submit report to the Court in exercise of powers under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 5. The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the court has no such power to order investigation without being sanction as required under Section 19(1) and 19(3) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. 6. The point raised in this petition is not res integra as has already been decided by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Anil Kumar and others Vs. M.K. Aiyappa and another, (2013) 10 SCC 705 that in a private complaint the court has no power to order investigation in exercise of powers under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. if the offence is regarding without previous sanction under Section 19(1) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. 7. Admittedly, no sanction has been obtained by respondent No. 3. Hence, the order passed by the Special Court and subsequent proceedings pursuant to the order are against law. Consequently, petition is disposed of with the following directions: (1) That, the order dated 07.01.2011 is hereby quashed. (2) The proceedings pending before the court are hereby dropped, however, it is observed that in regard to other offences mentioned in the order regard Indian Penal Code, respondent No. 3 is at liberty to continue the proceedings and petitioner is also at liberty to take objections before the court in regard to obtaining the previous sanction under Section 197Cr.P.C. from the appropriate government. (3) If any sanction be granted in favour of respondent No. 3 by the Government, under the provisions of Prevention of Corruption Act, respondent No. 3 is at liberty to prosecute the same before the appropriate Court of jurisdiction.