Sanction as a Prerequisite for Investigation
In C.V. Balan & Ors. v. State of Kerala & Ors., the High Court of Kerala has held that prior sanction from a competent authority, pursuant to Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act (PCA), is a mandatory prerequisite for a court to order an investigation in a private complaint against a public servant.
Consequently, a court cannot forward a private complaint against a public servant, coming under Section 2 (c) of the PCA, to the police for an investigation under Section 156 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), in the absence of such sanction.
Reliance on Supreme Court Precedent
The High Court’s judgment relied upon several decisions of the Supreme Court (SC), including Anil Kumar & Ors. v. M.K. Aiyappa & Anr. and L. Narayana Swamy v. State of Karnataka & Ors. These precedents categorically establish that prior sanction is a prerequisite to ordering an investigation under Section 156(3) CrPC.
In light of these precedents, the High Court held that no court may take cognizance of an offence alleged to have been committed by a public servant and punishable under Sections 7, 11, 13, and 15 of the PCA, without the previous sanction of the competent authority as stipulated under Section 19(1)(a), (b), and (c) of the PCA.
The Legal Controversy: Sanction at the Pre-Cognizance Stage
There is no explicit prohibition, either in the PCA or the CrPC, against initiating an investigation by lodging a First Information Report (FIR) or through a court-ordered investigation under Section 156 (3) of the CrPC without prior sanction.
However, the two-judge bench in Anil Kumar & Ors. v. M.K. Aiyappa & Anr., and several subsequent judgments, unsettled the established legal position by holding that the requirement of sanction under Section 19 of the PCA applies at the pre-cognizance stage itself.
Therefore, it was held that an application under Section 156 (3) of the CrPC is not maintainable without obtaining the prior sanction of the competent authority.
Referral of the Issue to a Larger Bench
Subsequently, in Manju Surana v. Sunil Arora (2018) and Shamim Khan v. Debashish Chakraborty & Ors. (2024), two separate benches of the Supreme Court have referred the issue to a larger bench for authoritative determination.
The question referred is whether prior sanction under Section 19 (1) of the PCA is mandatory for a Magistrate to direct an investigation under Section 156 (3) of the CrPC against a public servant based on a private complaint.
Conclusion
The High Court of Kerala, relying on the prevailing Supreme Court judgments, concluded that the subordinate court erred in forwarding the complaints for investigation under Section 156 (3) of the CrPC without the complainants having first obtained the requisite sanction under Section 19 (1) of the PCA.
Accordingly, as the law currently stands based on these precedents, obtaining prior sanction from the competent authority under Section 19 (1) of the PCA is a mandatory condition for a court to order an investigation under Section 156 (3) of the CrPC in a private complaint filed against a public servant for offences punishable under Sections 7, 11, 13, and 15 of the PCA.
Further Reading
