MANJU SURANA v. SUNIL ARORA & Ors.

Anil Kumar v. M.K. Aiyappa (2013) 10 SCC 705 : [2013] 9 SCR 869 ; P. Nallammal v. State (1999) 6 SCC 559 : [1999] 1 Suppl. SCR 135 ; L. Narayana Swamy v. State of Karnataka (2016) 9 SCC 598 : [2016] 5 SCR 683 ; R.R. Chari v. State of U.P. [1951] SCR 312 ; Gopal Marwari v. Emperor AIR 1943 Pat 245 ; Superintendent and Remembrancer of Legal Affairs, West Bengal v. Abani Kumar Banerjee AIR 1950 Cal 437 ; Gopal Das Sindhi v. State of Assam AIR 1961 SC 986 ; Jamuna Singh v. Bhadai Shah [1964] 5 SCR 37 ; Nirmaljit Singh Hoon v. State of W.B. (1973) 3 SCC 753 : [1973] 2 SCR 66 ; Devarapally Lakshminarayana Reddy v. V. Narayana Reddy (1976) 3 SCC 252 : [1976] Suppl. SCR 524 ; Tula Ram v. Kishore Singh (1977) 4 SCC 459: [1978] 1 SCR 615 ; Srinivas Gundluri v. SEPCO Electric Power Construction Corpn. (2010) 8 SCC 206 : [2010] 9 SCR 278 ; Subramanian Swamy v. CBI (2014) 8 SCC 682 : [2014] 6 SCR 873 ; Maksud Saiyed v. State of Gujarat (2008) 5 SCC 668 : [2007] 9 SCR 1113 ; State of U.P. v. Paras Nath Singh (2009) 6 SCC 372 : [2009] 8 SCR 85 ; Ramdev Food Products (P) Ltd. v. State of Gujarat (2015) 6 SCC 439 : [2015] 5 SCR 283 ; Suresh Chand Jain v. State of Madhya Pradesh (2001) 2 SCC 628 : [2001] 1 SCR 257; Mohd. Yousuf v. Afaq Jahan (2006) 1 SCC 627: [2006] 1 SCR 1 – referred to. Case Law Reference [2013] 9 SCR 869 referred to [1999] 1 Suppl. SCR 135 referred to [2016] 5 SCR 683 referred to Para 5 Para 6 Para 8 A B C D E F G H 700 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2018] 3 S.C.R. A [1951] SCR 312 referred to AIR 1943 Pat 245 referred to AIR 1950 Cal 437 referred to AIR 1961 SC 986 referred to [1964] 5 SCR 37 referred to [1973] 2 SCR 66 referred to [1976] Suppl. SCR 524 referred to [1978] 1 SCR 615 referred to [2010] 9 SCR 278 referred to [2014] 6 SCR 873 referred to [2007] 9 SCR 1113 referred to [2009] 8 SCR 85 referred to [2015] 5 SCR 283 referred to [2001] 1 SCR 257 referred to [2006] 1 SCR 1 referred to Para 18 Para 18 Para 18 Para 19 Para 20 Para 21 Para 22 Para 23 Para 24 Para 25 Para 27 Para 28 Para 32 Para 32 Para 32 CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. 457 of 2018. From the Judgment and Order dated 30.04.2014 of the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jaipur in S. B. Cr. Revision Petition No. 341 of 2014 Criminal Appeal No.458 of 2018. WITH Prashant Bhushan, Rohit Kumar Singh, Shakti Vardhan, Advs. for the Appellant. Tushar Mehta, ASG, Shiv Mangal Sharma, S. S. Shamshery, Ajay Kapur, AAGs, Vikas Singh, Sr. Adv., H. D. Thanvi, Rishi Matoliya, Anirudh Singh, Milind Kumar, Satya Mitra Garg, Anchit Sharma, Ms. Dipika Kalia, Kprish Seth, Nachiketa Joshi, Rajeev Sharma, Merusagar Samantaray, Gautam Jha, Nishant Ramakantrao Katneshwarkar, Advs. for the Respondents. B C D E F G H MANJU SURANA v. SUNIL ARORA & ORS. 701 The Judgment of the Court was delivered by SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, J. CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.457 OF 2018 (Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No.5838 of 2014) 1. Leave granted. 2. The question of law sought to be raised in the appeals is as to whether prior sanction for prosecution qua allegation of corruption in respect of a public servants is required before setting in motion even the investigative process under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Cr.P.C.’).

#3. In Criminal Appeal No. 457 of 2018 (arising out of SLP (Crl.) No.5838 of 2014), the appellant submitted a complaint before the Special Judge (Prevention of Corruption Act, Jaipur Metropolitan City, Jaipur) under Sections 7 & 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘PC Act’) and Sections 420, 467, 468 & 471 read with Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘IPC’). The appellant sought investigation of offences and registration of an FIR against the accused persons. The first respondent arrayed as an accused before the Special Judge as “Principal Secretary to the Government P.H.E.D. Chief Minister” is the first respondent before us, the other persons arrayed as accused before the Special Judge, being the Superintending Engineer, Chief Engineer, ex Chief Minister (as she then was), ex Minister of P.H.E.D., Finance Secretary, Deputy Accountant General and P.S.L. Company through its Managing Director are also before us, as the Respondents. It is alleged in the complaint that in the drinking water project Nos.1 to 8, a conspiracy was hatched for fulfilling the personal vested interest by way of a tender procedure, which caused loss to the Government fund. The last and the 8th accused was stated to be given the advantage for personal interest. It is not necessary for the purpose of the present controversy to get into the detailed facts but suffice to say that as per the allegations of the appellant, there was a shortage of budget for running the projects and the report of respondent No.1, then the Principal Secretary, dated 20.4.2008 was liable to be perused. In order to make payments for the outstanding and running projects, the Chief Secretary, accused No.1, is stated to have written a proposal to the Finance Department but the Finance Secretary expressed his inability for making available such huge amounts. The fund was stated to have been digressed. A B C D E F G H 702 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2018] 3 S.C.R.

#4. It is extremely relevant to note that from the facts, which have now come to light, respondent No.1 herein was neither holding the post of the Principal Secretary of the P.H.E.D nor the Chief Secretary at the relevant stage of time and the description of his office is consequently not correct. The first respondent was actually holding the post of Principal Secretary to the Chief Minister.

#5. The Special Judge closed the complaint in terms of order dated 4.2.2014 on account of the fact that the accused persons arrayed as respondents are either public servants or have remained as public servants and no prior sanction has been granted by the competent authority under Section 19 of the PC Act read with Section 197 of the Cr.P.C. To support this conclusion, reliance was placed on the judgment of this Court in Anil Kumar v. M.K. Aiyappa1 opining that no complaint could be forwarded for investigation under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. nor could any proceedings be initiated under Sections 202 & 202 of the Cr.P.C. in the absence of such sanction. It was, thus, observed that further proceedings in the case would be conducted on the filing of sanction.

#6. The appellant preferred a revision petition against this order, which has been dismissed by the detailed impugned order dated 30.4.2014. The order really refers to various judicial pronouncements and then concludes that in view of the judgment in Anil Kumar v. M.K. Aiyappa2 and P. Nallammal v. State3 both for the reasons of absence of any sanction, as also the revision petition being directed against an interlocutory order, the petition was not maintainable. Thereafter the present Special Leave Petition has been filed.

#7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties.

#8. Mr. Prashant Bhushan, learned counsel appearing for the appellant sought to question the view taken in Anil Kumar4 and in L. Narayana Swamy v. State of Karnataka5 following the earlier judgment. The sub-stratum of the argument is that the requirement of prior sanction for prosecution against the public servant would arise only when cognizance is taken, while no such sanction was required at the