Anil Kumar v. M.K. Aiyappa, (2013) 10 SCC 705
Criminal Law
Public Accountability, Vigilance and Prevention of Corruption
Ss. 19(1) and (3) - Sanction under S. 19(1) - Held, is a precondition for ordering investigation against public servant
under S. 156(3) CrPC even at pre-cognizance stage - Non-effect of absence of sanction in some circumstances under S.
19(3) - Held, does not mean that requirement of sanction is not mandatory - Private complaint against public servant
under S. 200 CrPC - Reference of complaint by Magistrate under S. 156(3) CrPC for investigation by police - No sanction
order under S. 19(1), PC Act, 1988 - Reference, not valid - Investigation under S. 156(3) CrPC cannot be ordered without
previous sanction under S. 19(1), PC Act,
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973
Ss. 200, 202 and 156(3) - Power of Magistrate under, to order investigation upon private complaint - Exercise of -
Requirement of application of mind, emphasised - Held, Magistrate while exercising powers under S. 156(3) is required
to apply his mind which should be reflected in his order though a detailed expression of his views is neither required nor
warranted,
Criminal Law
Ss. 156(3), 200 and 202 - Order directing investigation under S. 156(3) - Held, does not amount to taking cognizance of
the offence - Hence, Special Judge under Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 referring private complaint against public
servant for investigation under S. 156(3) CrPC, cannot be said to have taken cognizance of offence since it is a pre-
cognizance stage,
Public Accountability, Vigilance and Prevention of Corruption
S. 5(4) - Special Judge - Status - Held, is treated as Magistrate and enjoys all Magisterial powers available under CrPC,
Ss. 200, 202, 156(3) and 190 - Private complaint - Reference for police investigation under S. 156(3) - Competent
Magistrate - Held, is the one who is empowered under S. 190 to take cognizance,
No comments:
Post a Comment