Full Judgement
Dr. Subramanian Swamy Vs. Dr. Manmohan Singh and another
[Civil Appeal No. 1193 of 2012 arising out of SLP (C) No. 27535 of 2010]
J U D G M E N T
G. S. Singhvi, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. Whether a complaint can be filed by a citizen for prosecuting a public servant for an offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short, `the 1988 Act') and whether the authority competent to sanction prosecution of a public servant for offences under the 1988 Act is required to take an appropriate decision within the time specified in clause I(15) of the directions contained in paragraph 58 of the judgment of this Court in Vineet Narain v. Union of India (1998) 1 SCC 226 and the guidelines issued by the Central Government, Department of Personnel and Training and the Central Vigilance Commission (CVC) are the question which require consideration in this appeal.
3. For the last more than three years, the appellant has been vigorously pursuing, in public interest, the cases allegedly involving loss of thousands of crores of rupees to the Public Exchequer due to arbitrary and illegal grant of licences at the behest of Mr. A. Raja (respondent No. 2) who was appointed as Minister for Communication and Information Technology on 16.5.2007 by the President on the advice of Dr. Manmohan Singh (respondent No. 1).
After collecting information about the grant of licences, the appellant made detailed representation dated 29.11.2008 to respondent No. 1 to accord sanction for prosecution of respondent No. 2 for offences under the 1988 Act. In his representation, the appellant pointed out that respondent No. 2 had allotted new licences in 2G mobile services on `first come, first served' basis to novice telecom companies, viz., Swan Telecom and Unitech, which was in clear violation of Clause 8 of the Guidelines for United Access Services Licence issued by the Ministry of Communication and Information Technology vide letter No.10-21/2005-BS.I(Vol.II)/49 dated 14.12.2005 and, 3thereby, caused loss of over Rs. 50,000 crores to the Government.
The appellant gave details of the violation of Clause 8 and pointed out that the two officers, viz., R.J.S. Kushwaha and D. Jha of the Department of Telecom, who had opposed the showing of undue favour to Swan Telecom, were transferred just before the grant of licences and Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited (BSNL) which had never entered into a roaming agreement with any operator, was forced to enter into such an agreement with Swan Telecom. The appellant further pointed out that immediately after acquiring 2G spectrum licences, Swan Telecom and Unitech sold their stakes to foreign companies, i.e., Etisalat, a telecom operator from UAE and Telenor of Norway respectively and, thereby, made huge profits at the expense of public revenue.
He claimed that by 2G spectrum allocation under respondent No. 2, the Government received only one-sixth of what it would have received if it had opted for an auction. The appellant pointed out how respondent No. 2 ignored the recommendations of the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI) and gave totally unwarranted benefits to the two companies and thereby caused loss to the Public Exchequer. Some of the portions of the appellant's representation are extracted below: "Clause 8 has been violated as follows: While Anil Dhirubhai Ambani Group (ADAG), the promoters of Reliance Communications (R Com), had more than 10 per cent stake in Swan Telecom, the figures were manipulated and showed as 9.99 per cent holding to beat the said Clause.
The documents available disclose that on March 2, 2007, when Swan Telecom applied for United Access Services Licences, it was owned 100 per cent by Reliance Communications and its associates viz. Reliance Telecom, and by Tiger Trustees Limited, Swan Infonet Services Private Limited, and Swan Advisory Services Private Limited (see Annexure I). At one or the other point of time, employees of ADAG (Himanshu Agarwal, Ashish Karyekar, Paresh Rathod) or its associate companies have been acquiring the shares of Swan Telecom itself. But still the ADAG manipulated the holdings in Swan to reduce it to only 9.99 per cent. Ambani has now quietly sold his shares in Swan to Delphi Investments, a Mauritius based company owned by Ahmed O. Alfi, specializing in automobile spare parts.
In turn, Swan has sold 45% of its shares to UAE's Emirates Telecom Corporation (Etisalat) for Rs.9000 crores! All this is highly suspicious and not normal business transactions. Swan company got 60% of the 22 Telecom licenced areas at a throw away price of Rs.1650 crores, when it was worth Rs.60,000 crores total. Room has operations in the same circles where the application for Swan Telecom was filed. Therefore, under Clause 8 of the Guidelines, Swan should not have been allotted spectrum by the Telecommunication Ministry. But the company did get it on Minister's direction, which is an undue favour from him (Raja).
There was obviously a quid pro quo which only a CBI enquiry can reveal, after an FIR is registered. There is no need for a P/E, because the CVC has already done the preliminary enquiry.Quite surprisingly, the 2G spectrum licences were priced at 2001 levels to benefit these private players. That was when there were only 4 million cellphone 5 subscribers; now it is 350 million. Hence 2001 price is not applicable today. Immediately after acquiring 2G spectrum licences both Swan and Unitech sold their stakes to foreign companies at a huge profits. While Swan Telecom sold its stakes to UAE telecom operator Etisalat, Unitech signed a deal with Telenor of Norway for selling its share at huge premiums.
In the process of this 2G spectrum allocation, the government received only one-sixth of what it would have got had it gone through a fresh auction route. The total loss to the exchequer of giving away 2G GSM spectrum in this way - including to the CDMA operators - is over Rs.50,000 crores and is said to be one of the biggest financial scams of all times in the country. While approving the 2G licences, Minister Raja turned a blind eye to the fact that these two companies do not have any infrastructure to launch their services. Falsely claiming that the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India had approved the first-cum-first served rule, Raja went ahead with the 2G spectrum allocation to two debutants in the Telecom sector.
In fact earlier TRAI had discussed the spectrum allocation issue with existing services providers and suggested to the Telecom Ministry that spectrum allocation be made through a transparent tender and auction process. This is confirmed by what the TRAI Chairman N. Misra told the CII organized conference on November 28, 2008 (Annexure 2). But Raja did not bother to listen to the TRAI either and pursued the process on `first come, first served' basis, benefiting those who had inside information, causing a loss of Rs.50,000 crores to the Government.
His dubious move has been to ensure benefit to others at the cost of the national exchequer." The request made in the representation, which was relied upon by the learned Attorney General for showing that the 6appellant had himself asked for an investigation, is also extracted below: "According to an uncontradicted report in CNN-IBN news channel of November 26, 2008, you are said to be "very upset with A. Raja over the spectrum allocation issue". This confirms that an investigation is necessary, for which I may be given sanction so that the process of law can be initiated. I, therefore, writ to demand the grant of sanction to prosecute Mr. A. Raja, Minister for Telecom of the Union of India for offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act. The charges in brief are annexed herewith (Annexure 3)."
4. Since the appellant did not receive any response from respondent No.1, he sent letters dated 30.5.2009, 23.10.2009, 31.10.2009, 8.3.2010 and 13.3.2010 and reiterated his request/demand for grant of sanction to prosecute respondent No.2. In his letter dated 31.10.2009, the appellant referred to the fact that on being directed by the CVC, the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) had registered a first information report, and claimed that prima facie case is established against respondent No. 2 for his prosecution under Sections 11 and 13(1)(d) of the 1988 Act.
The appellant also claimed that according to various Supreme Court judgments it was not necessary to carry out a detailed inquiry, and he had produced sufficient evidence for 7grant of sanction to initiate criminal prosecution against respondent No. 2 for the misuse of authority and pecuniary gains from corrupt practices. In his subsequent letters, the appellant again asserted that the nation had suffered loss of nearly Rs.65,000 crores due to arbitrary, unreasonable and mala fide action of respondent No.2.
In letter dated 13.3.2010, the appellant referred to the proceedings of the case in which this Court refused to interfere with the order of the Delhi High Court declaring that the decision of respondent No.2 to change the cut off date fixed for consideration of applications made for grant of licences was arbitrary and mala fide.
5. After 1 year and 4-1/2 months of the first letter written by him, Secretary, Department of Personnel and Training, Ministry of Personnel sent letter dated 19.3.2010 to the appellant mentioning therein that the CBI had registered a case on 21.10.2009 against unknown officers of the Department of Telecommunications (DoT), unknown private persons/companies and others and that the issue of grant of sanction for prosecution would arise only after perusal of the evidence collected by the investigating agency and other material provided to the Competent Authority and that it 8would be premature to consider sanction for prosecution at that stage.
6. On receipt of the aforesaid communication, the appellant filed Civil Writ Petition No. 2442/2010 in the Delhi High Court and prayed for issue of a mandamus to respondent No.1 to pass an order for grant of sanction for prosecution of respondent No. 2.
The Division Bench of the Delhi High Court referred to the submission of the learned Solicitor General that when respondent No. 1 has directed investigation by the CBI and the investigation is in progress, it is not permissible to take a decision on the application of the appellant either to grant or refuse the sanction because that may affect the investigation, and dismissed the writ petition by recording the following observations:
"The question that emanates for consideration is whether, at this stage, when the investigation by the CBI is in progress and this Court had earlier declined to monitor the same by order dated 25th May, 2010, which has been pressed into service by the learned Solicitor General of India, it would be appropriate to direct the respondent no. 1 to take a decision as regards the application submitted by the petitioner seeking sanction to prosecute. In our considered opinion, when the matter is being investigated by the CBI, and the investigation is in progress, it would not be in fitness of things to issue a mandamus to the first respondent to take a decision on the application of the petitioner."
7. The special leave petition filed by the appellant, out of which this appeal arises, was initially taken up for consideration along with SLP(C) No. 24873/2010 filed by the Center for Public Interest Litigation against order dated 25.5.2010 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 3522/2010 to which reference had been made in the impugned order. During the course of hearing of the special leave petition filed by the appellant, the learned Solicitor General, who had appeared on behalf of respondent No. 1, made a statement that he has got the record and is prepared to place the same before the Court.
However, keeping in view the fact that the record sought to be produced by the learned Solicitor General may not be readily available to the appellant, the Court passed order dated 18.11.2010 requiring the filing of an affidavit on behalf of respondent No. 1. Thereafter, Shri V. Vidyavati, Director in the PMO filed affidavit dated 20.11.2010, which reveals the following facts:
i. "On 1.12.2008, the Prime Minister perused the letter and noted "Please examine and let me know the facts of this case". This was marked to the Principal Secretary to the Prime Minister who in turn marked it to the Secretary. The Secretary marked it to me as Director in the PMO. I prepared a note dated 5.12.2008 factually summarizing the allegations and seeking approval to obtain the factual position from the sectoral side (in the PMO dealing with Telecommunications).
ii. On 11.12.2008, a copy of appellant's letter dated 29.11.2008 was sent to the Secretary, Department of Telecommunication for submitting a factual report. The Department of Telecommunication sent reply dated 13.02.2009 incorporating his comments.
iii. In the meanwhile, letters dated 10.11.2008 and 22.11.2008 were received from Shri Gurudas Gupta and Shri Suravaran Sudhakar Reddy respectively (copies of these letters have not been produced before the Court). The same were forwarded to the Department of Telecommunication on 25.03.2009 for sending an appropriate reply to the appellant.
iv. On 01.06.2009, letter dated 30.05.2009 received from the appellant was placed before respondent No.1, who recorded the following endorsement "please examine and discuss".
v. On 19.06.2009, the Director of the concerned Sector in the PMO recorded that the Minister of Telecommunications and Information Technology has sent D.O. letter dated 18.06.2009 to the appellant. When letter dated 23.10.2009 of the appellant was placed before respondent No.1, he recorded an endorsement on 27.10.2009 "please discuss".
vi. In response to letter dated 31.10.2009 of the appellant, respondent No.1 made an endorsement "please examine".
vii. On 18.11.2009, respondent No.1 stated that Ministry of Law and Justice should examine and advice. The advice of Ministry of Law and Justice was received on 8.2.2010. Para 7 thereof was as follows:
"From the perusal of letter dated 23.10.2009 and 31.10.2009, it is noticed that Shri Swamy wants to rely upon the action and investigation of the CBI to collaborate and strengthen the said allegation leveled by him against Shri A. Raja, Minister for Communication and Information Technology.
It is specifically mentioned in Para 2 of the letter dated 31.10.2009 of Shri Swamy that the FIR was registered by the CBI and "the substance of the allegation made by me in the above cited letters to you are already under investigation". If it is so, then it may be stated that decision to accord of sanction of prosecution may be determined only after the perusal of the evidence (oral or documentary) collected by the investigation agency, i.e., CBI and other materials to be provided to the competent authority." (viii) On 05.03.2010, the deponent prepared a note that an appropriate reply be sent to the appellant in the light of the advice given by the Law Department and final reply was sent to the appellant after respondent No.1 had approved note dated 17.03.2010."
8. The appellant filed rejoinder affidavit on 22.11.2010 along with a copy of letter dated 18.6.2009 written to him by respondent No. 2 in the context of representation dated 29.11.2008 submitted by him to respondent No.1.
9. Although, respondent No.2 resigned from the Council of Ministers on 14.11.2010, the appellant submitted that the issues relating to his right to file a complaint for prosecution of respondent No.2 and grant of sanction within the time specified in the judgment in Vineet Narain's case should be decided.
10. During the course of hearing, the learned Attorney General filed written submissions. After the hearing concluded, the learned Attorney General filed supplementary written submissions along with a compilation of 126 cases in which the sanction for prosecution is awaited for periods ranging from more than one year to few months
11. Final order in this case was deferred because it was felt that the directions given by this Court in Vineet Narain's case may require further elaboration in the light of the order passed in Civil Appeal No. 10660/2010 (arising out of SLP(C) No. 24873/2010) and the fact that decision on the question of grant of sanction under the 1988 Act and other statutes is pending for a sufficiently long time in 126 cases. However, as the investigation with regard to some of the facets of what has come to be termed as 2G case is yet to be completed, we have considered it appropriate to pass final order in the matter.
12. Appellant Dr. Subramanian Swamy argued that the embargo contained in Section 19(1) of the 1988 Act operates only against the taking of cognizance by the Court in respect of offences punishable under Sections 7, 10, 11, 13 and 15 committed by a public servant, but there is no bar to the filing of a private complaint for prosecution of the concerned public servant and grant of sanction by the Competent Authority, and that respondent No. 1 was duty bound to take appropriate decision on his representation within the time specified in clause I(15) of the directions contained in paragraph 58 of Vineet Narain's case, more so because he had placed sufficient evidence to show that respondent No.2 had committed offences under the 1988 Act.
13. The learned Attorney General argued that the question of grant of sanction for prosecution of a public servant charged with any of the offences enumerated in Section 19(1) arises only at the stage when the Court decides to take cognizance and any request made prior to that is premature. He submitted that the embargo contained in Section 19(1) of the Act is applicable to the Court which is competent to take cognizance of an offence punishable under Sections 7, 10, 11, 13 and 15 alleged to have been committed by a public servant and there is no provision for grant of sanction at a stage before the competent Court applies its mind to the issue of taking cognizance.
Learned Attorney General relied upon the judgment of the Calcutta High Court in Superintendent and Remembrancer of Legal Affairs v. Abani Kumar Banerjee AIR 1950 Cal. 437 as also the judgments of this Court in R.R. Chari v. State of Uttar Pradesh 1951 SCR 312, Devarapalli Lakshminarayana Reddy v. V. Narayana Reddy (1976) 3 SCC 252, Ram Kumar v. State of Haryana (1987) 1 SCC 476, Krishna Pillai v. T.A. Rajendran, 1990 (Supp) SCC 121, State of West Bengal v. Mohd. Khalid (1995) 1 SCC 684, State through C.B.I. v. Raj Kumar Jain (1998) 6 SCC 551, K. Kalimuthu v. State (2005) 4 SCC 512, Centre for Public Interest Litigation v. Union of India (2005) 8 SCC 202 and State of Karnataka v. Pastor P. Raju (2006) 6 SCC 728 and argued that letter dated 29.11.2008 sent by the appellant for grant of sanction to prosecute respondent No.2 for the alleged offences under the 1988 Act was wholly misconceived and respondent No.1 did not commit any illegality or constitutional impropriety by not entertaining his prayer, more so because the appellant had himself asked for an investigation into the alleged illegal grant of licences at the behest of respondent No.2. Learned Attorney General further argued that the appellant does not have the locus standi to file a complaint for prosecuting respondent No.2 because the CBI is already investigating the allegations of irregularity committed in the grant of licences for 2G spectrum and the loss, if any, suffered by the Public Exchequer.
14. We have considered the respective submissions. Section 19 of the 1988 Act reads as under: "19. Previous sanction necessary for prosecution. –
1. No court shall take cognizance of an offence punishable under sections 7, 10, 11, 13 and 15 alleged to have been committed by a public servant, except with the previous sanction, -
a. in the case of a person who is employed in connection with the affairs of the Union and is not removable from his office save by or with the sanction of the Central Government, of that Government;
b. in the case of a person who is employed in connection with the affairs of a State and is not removable from his office save by or with the sanction of the State Government, of that Government;
c. in the case of any other person, of the authority competent to remove him from his office.
2. Where for any reason whatsoever any doubt arises as to whether the previous sanction as required under sub-section (1) should be given by the Central Government or the State Government or any other authority, such sanction shall be given by that Government or authority which would have been competent to remove the public servant from his office at the time when the offence was alleged to have been committed.
3. Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974),-
a. no finding, sentence or order passed by a special Judge shall be reversed or altered by a court in appeal, confirmation or revision on the ground of the absence of, or any error, omission or irregularity in, the sanction required under sub- 16 section (1), unless in the opinion of that court, a failure of justice has in fact been occasioned thereby;
b. no court shall stay the proceedings under this Act on the ground of any error, omission or irregularity in the sanction granted by the authority, unless it is satisfied that such error, omission or irregularity has resulted in a failure of justice;
c. no court shall stay the proceedings under this Act on any other ground and no court shall exercise the powers of revision in relation to any interlocutory order passed in any inquiry, trial, appeal or other proceedings.
4. In determining under sub-section (3) whether the absence of, or any error, omission or irregularity in, such sanction has occasioned or resulted in a failure of justice the court shall have regard to the fact whether the objection could and should have been raised at any earlier stage in the proceedings.
Explanation. –
For the purposes of this section,
a. error includes competency of the authority to grant sanction;
b. a sanction required for prosecution includes reference to any requirement that the prosecution shall be at the instance of a specified authority or with the sanction of a specified person or any requirement of a similar nature."
15. The question whether sanction for prosecution of respondent No.2 for the offences allegedly committed by him under the 1988 Act is required even after he resigned from the Council of Ministers, though he continues to be a Member of Parliament, need not detain us because the same has already been answered by the Constitution Bench in R. S. Nayak v. A. R. Antulay (1984) 2 SCC 183 the relevant portions of which are extracted below:
"Now if the public servant holds two offices and he is accused of having abused one and from which he is removed but continues to hold the other which is neither alleged to have been used (sic misused) nor abused, is a sanction of the authority competent to remove him from the office which is neither alleged or shown to have been abused or misused necessary? The submission is that if the harassment of the public servant by a frivolous prosecution and criminal waste of his time in law courts keeping him away from discharging public duty, are the objects underlying Section 6, the same would be defeated if it is held that the sanction of the latter authority is not necessary.
The submission does not commend to us. We fail to see how the competent authority entitled to remove the public servant from an office which is neither alleged to have been used (sic misused) or abused would be able to decide whether the prosecution is frivolous or tendentious.
An illustration was posed to the learned counsel that a minister who is indisputably a public servant greased his palms by abusing his office as minister, and then ceased to hold the office before the court was called upon to take cognizance of the offence against him and therefore, sanction as contemplated by Section 6 would not be necessary; but if after committing the offence and before the date of taking of cognizance of the offence, he was elected as a Municipal President in which capacity he was a public servant under the relevant municipal law, and was holding that office on the date on which court proceeded to take cognizance of the offence committed by him as a minister, would a sanction be necessary and that too of that authority competent to remove him from the office of the Municipal President.
The answer was in affirmative. But the very illustration would show that such cannot be the law. Such an interpretation of 18 Section 6 would render it as a shield to an unscrupulous public servant. Someone interested in protecting may shift him from one office of public servant to another and thereby defeat the process of law.
One can legitimately envisage a situation wherein a person may hold a dozen different offices, each one clothing him with the status of a public servant under Section 21 IPC (Indian Penal code, 1860) and even if he has abused only one office for which either there is a valid sanction to prosecute him or he has ceased to hold that office by the time court was called upon to take cognizance, yet on this assumption, sanction of 11 different competent authorities each of which was entitled to remove him from 11 different public offices would be necessary before the court can take cognizance of the offence committed by such public servant, while abusing one office which he may have ceased to hold. Such an interpretation is contrary to all canons of construction and leads to an absurd end product which of necessity must be avoided. Legislation must at all costs be interpreted in such a way that it would not operate as a rogue's charter.
We would however, like to make it abundantly clear that if the two decisions purport to lay down that even if a public servant has ceased to hold that office as public servant which he is alleged to have abused or misused for corrupt motives, but on the date of taking cognizance of an offence alleged to have been committed by him as a public servant which he ceased to be and holds an entirely different public office which he is neither alleged to have misused or abused for corrupt motives, yet the sanction of authority competent to remove him from such latter office would be necessary before taking cognizance of the offence alleged to have been committed by the public servant while holding an office which he is alleged to have abused or misused and which he has ceased to hold, the decision in our opinion, do not lay down the correct law and cannot be accepted as making a correct interpretation of Section 6."
16. The same view has been taken in Habibullsa Khan v. State of Orissa (1995) 2 SCC 437 (para 12), State of H.P. v. M. P. Gupta (2004) 2 SCC 349 (paras 17 and 19), Parkash Singh Badal v. State of Punjab (2007) 1 SCC 1 and Balakrishnan Ravi Menon v. Union of India (2007) 1 SCC 45. In Balakrishnan Ravi Menon's case, it was argued that the observations made in para 25 of the judgment in Antulay's case are obiter. While negating this submission, the Court observed : "Hence, it is difficult to accept the contention raised by Mr. U.R. Lalit, the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner that the aforesaid finding given by this Court in Antulay case is obiter.
Further, under Section 19 of the PC Act, sanction is to be given by the Government or the authority which would have been competent to remove the public servant from his office at the time when the offence was alleged to have been committed. The question of obtaining sanction would arise in a case where the offence has been committed by a public servant who is holding the office and by misusing or abusing the powers of the office, he has committed the offence.
The word "office" repeatedly used in Section 19 would mean the "office" which the public servant misuses or abuses by corrupt motive for which he is to be prosecuted. Sub-sections (1) and (2) of Section 19 are as under: "19. Previous sanction necessary for prosecution. –
1. No court shall take cognizance of an offence punishable under Sections 7, 10, 11, 13 and 15 alleged to have been committed by a public servant, except with the previous sanction,--
a. in the case of a person who is employed in connection with the affairs of the Union and is not 20 removable from his office save by or with the sanction of the Central Government, of that Government;
b. in the case of a person who is employed in connection with the affairs of a State and is not removable from his office save by or with the sanction of the State Government, of that Government;
c. in the case of any other person, of the authority competent to remove him from his office.
2. Where for any reason whatsoever any doubt arises as to whether the previous sanction as required under sub-section (1) should be given by the Central Government or the State Government or any other authority, such sanction shall be given by that Government or authority which would have been competent to remove the public servant from his office at the time when the offence was alleged to have been committed.
"Clauses ( a ) and ( b ) of sub-section (1) specifically provide that in case of a person who is employed and is not removable from his office by the Central Government or the State Government, as the case may be, sanction to prosecute is required to be obtained either from the Central Government or the State Government. The emphasis is on the words "who is employed" in connection with the affairs of the Union or the State Government. If he is not employed then Section 19 nowhere provides for obtaining such sanction.
Further, under sub-section (2), the question of obtaining sanction is relatable to the time of holding the office when the offence was alleged to have been committed. In case where the person is not holding the said office as he might have retired, superannuated, be discharged or dismissed then the question of removing would not arise. Admittedly, when the alleged offence was committed, the petitioner was appointed by the Central Government. He demitted his office after completion of 21 five years' tenure. Therefore, at the relevant time when the charge-sheet was filed, the petitioner was not holding the office of the Chairman of Goa Shipyard Ltd. Hence, there is no question of obtaining any previous sanction of the Central Government."
(emphasis supplied)
17. The same view was reiterated in Parkash Singh Badal's case and the argument that even though some of the accused persons had ceased to be Ministers, they continued to be the Members of the Legislative Assembly and one of them was a Member of Parliament and as such cognizance could not be taken against them without prior sanction, was rejected.
18. The next question which requires consideration is whether the appellant has the locus standi to file a complaint for prosecution of respondent No.2 for the offences allegedly committed by him under the 1988 Act. There is no provision either in the 1988 Act or the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) which bars a citizen from filing a complaint for prosecution of a public servant who is alleged to have committed an offence.
Therefore, the argument of the learned Attorney General that the appellant cannot file a complaint for prosecuting respondent No.2 merits rejection. A similar argument was negatived by the Constitution Bench in A.R. Antulay v. Ramdas Sriniwas Nayak (1984) SCC 500. The facts of that case show that on a private complaint filed by the respondent, the Special Judge took cognizance of the offences allegedly committed by the appellant. The latter objected to the jurisdiction of the Special Judge on two counts, including the one that the Court set up under Section 6 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1952 (for short, `the 1952 Act') was not competent to take cognizance of any of the offences enumerated in Section 6(1)(a) and (b) upon a private complaint. His objections were rejected by the Special Judge.
The revision filed by the appellant was heard by the Division Bench of the High Court which ruled that a Special Judge is competent and is entitled to take cognizance of offences under Section 6(1)(a) and (b) on a private complaint of the facts constituting the offence. The High Court was of the opinion that a prior investigation under Section 5A of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 (for short, `the 1947 Act') by a police officer of the designated rank is not sine qua non for taking cognizance of an offence under Section 8(1) of the 1952 Act.
Before the Supreme Court, the argument against the locus standi of the respondent was reiterated and it was submitted that Section 5A of the 1947 Act is mandatory and an investigation by the designated officer is a condition precedent to the taking of cognizance by the Special Judge of an offence or offences committed by a public servant. While dealing with the issue relating to maintainability of a private complaint, the Constitution Bench observed: "It is a well recognised principle of criminal jurisprudence that anyone can set or put the criminal law into motion except where the statute enacting or creating an offence indicates to the contrary.
The scheme of the Code of Criminal Procedure envisages two parallel and independent agencies for taking criminal offences to court. Even for the most serious offence of murder, it was not disputed that a private complaint can, not only be filed but can be entertained and proceeded with according to law. Locus standi of the complainant is a concept foreign to criminal jurisprudence save and except that where the statute creating an offence provides for the eligibility of the complainant, by necessary implication the general principle gets excluded by such statutory provision.
Numerous statutory provisions, can be referred to in support of this legal position such as (i) Section 187-A of Sea Customs Act, 1878 (ii) Section 97 of Gold Control Act, 1968 (iii) Section 6 of Import and Export Control Act, 1947 (iv) Section 271 and Section 279 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (v) Section 61 of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973, (vi) Section 621 of the Companies Act, 1956 and (vii) Section 77 of the Electricity Supply Act. This list is only illustrative and not exhaustive.
While Section 190 of the Code of Criminal Procedure permits anyone to approach the Magistrate with a complaint, it does not prescribe any qualification the complainant is required to fulfil to be eligible to file a complaint. But where an eligibility criterion for a complainant is contemplated specific provisions have been made such as to be found in Sections 195 to 199 of the CrPC . These specific provisions clearly indicate that in the absence of any such statutory provision, a locus standi of a 24 complainant is a concept foreign to criminal jurisprudence.
In other words, the principle that anyone can set or put the criminal law in motion remains intact unless contra-indicated by a statutory provision. This general principle of nearly universal application is founded on a policy that an offence i.e. an act or omission made punishable by any law for the time being in force is not merely an offence committed relation to the person who suffers harm but is also an offence against society. The society for its orderly and peaceful development is interested in the punishment of the offender. Therefore, prosecution for serious offences is undertaken in the name of the State representing the people which would exclude any element of private vendetta or vengeance.
If such is the public policy underlying penal statutes, who brings an act or omission made punishable by law to the notice of the authority competent to deal with it, is immaterial and irrelevant unless the statute indicates to the contrary. Punishment of the offender in the interest of the society being one of the objects behind penal statutes enacted for larger good of the society, right to initiate proceedings cannot be whittled down, circumscribed or fettered by putting it into a strait-jacket formula of locus standi unknown to criminal jurisprudence, save and except specific statutory exception.
To hold that such an exception exists that a private complaint for offences of corruption committed by public servant is not maintainable, the court would require an unambiguous statutory provision and a tangled web of argument for drawing a far fetched implication, cannot be a substitute for an express statutory provision." (emphasis supplied) The Constitution Bench then considered whether the Special Judge can take cognizance only on the basis of a police report and answered the same in negative in the following words: 25"In the matter of initiation of proceeding before a Special Judge under Section 8(1), the Legislature while conferring power to take cognizance had three opportunities to unambiguously state its mind whether the cognizance can be taken on a private complaint or not.
The first one was an opportunity to provide in Section 8(1) itself by merely stating that the Special Judge may take cognizance of an offence on a police report submitted to it by an investigating officer conducting investigation as contemplated by Section 5-A. While providing for investigation by designated police officers of superior rank, the Legislature did not fetter the power of Special Judge to take cognizance in a manner otherwise than on police report. The second opportunity was when by Section 8(3) a status of a deemed public prosecutor was conferred on a private complainant if he chooses to conduct the prosecution.
The Legislature being aware of a provision like the one contained in Section 225 of the CrPC , could have as well provided that in every trial before a Special Judge the prosecution shall be conducted by a Public Prosecutor, though that itself would not have been decisive of the matter. And the third opportunity was when the Legislature while prescribing the procedure prescribed for warrant cases to be followed by Special Judge did not exclude by a specific provision that the only procedure which the Special Judge can follow is the one prescribed for trial of warrant cases on a police report.
The disinclination of the Legislature to so provide points to the contrary and no canon of construction permits the court to go in search of a hidden or implied limitation on the power of the Special Judge to take cognizance unfettered by such requirement of its being done on a police report alone. In our opinion, it is no answer to this fairly well-established legal position that for the last 32 years no case has come to the notice of the court in which cognizance was taken by a Special Judge on a private complaint for offences punishable under the 1947 Act." (emphasis supplied)
The Court then referred to Section 5A of the 1947 Act, the provisions of the 1952 Act, the judgments in H.N. Rishbud and Inder Singh v. State of Delhi (1955) 1 SCR 1150, State of M.P. v. Mubarak Ali 1959 Supp. (2) SCR 201, Union of India v. Mahesh Chandra AIR 1957 M.B. 43 and held: "Having carefully examined these judgments in the light of the submissions made, the only conclusion that unquestionably emerges is that Section 5-A is a safeguard against investigation of offences committed by public servants, by petty or lower rank police officer.
It has nothing to do directly or indirectly with the mode and method of taking cognizance of offences by the Court of Special Judge. It also follows as a necessary corollary that provision of Section 5-A is not a condition precedent to initiation of proceedings before the Special Judge who acquires power under Section 8(1) to take co gnizance of offences enumerated in Section 6(1)( a ) and ( b ), with this limitation alone that it shall not be upon commitment to him by the Magistrate.
Once the contention on behalf of the appellant that investigation under Section 5-A is a condition precedent to the initiation of proceedings before a Special Judge and therefore cognizance of an offence cannot be taken except upon a police report, does not commend to us and has no foundation in law, it is unnecessary to refer to the long line of decisions commencing from Taylor v. Taylor ; Nazir Ahmad v. Kin g-Emperor and ending with Chettiam VeettilAmmad v. Taluk Land Board , laying down hitherto uncontroverted legal principle that where a statute requires to do a certain thing in a certain way, the thing must be done in that way or not at all. Other methods of performance are necessarily forbidden.
Once Section 5-A is out of the way in the matter of taking cognizance of offences committed by public servants by a Special Judge, the power of the Special 27Judge to take cognizance of such offences conferred by Section 8(1) with only one limitation, in any one of the known methods of taking cognizance of offences by courts of original jurisdiction remains undented. One such statutorily recognised well-known method of taking cognizance of offences by a court competent to take cognizance is upon receiving a complaint of facts which constitutes the offence.
And Section 8(1) says that the Special Judge has the power to take cognizance of offences enumerated in Section 6(1)(a) and (b) and the only mode of taking cognizance excluded by the provision is upon commitment. It therefore, follows that the Special Judge can take cognizance of offences committed by public servants upon receiving a complaint of facts constituting such offences. It was, however, submitted that even if it be held that the Special Judge is entitled to entertain a private complaint, no further steps can be taken by him without directing an investigation under Section 5-A so that the safeguard of Section 5-A is not whittled down. This is the selfsame argument under a different apparel.
Accepting such a submission would tantamount to saying that on receipt of the complaint the Special Judge must direct an investigation under Section 5-A, There is no warrant for such an approach. Astounding as it appeared to us, in all solemnity it was submitted that investigation of an offence by a superior police officer affords a more solid safeguard compared to a court. Myopic as this is, it would topsyturvy the fundamental belief that to a person accused of an offence there is no better safeguard than a court.
And this is constitutionally epitomised in Article 22 that upon arrest by police, the arrested person must be produced before the nearest Magistrate within twenty-four hours of the arrest. Further, numerous provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure such as Section 161, Section 164, and Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act would show the Legislature's hesitation in placing confidence on police officers away from court's gaze. And the very fact that power is conferred on a Presidency Magistrate or Magistrate of the first class to 28 permit police officers of lower rank to investigate these offences would speak for the mind of the Legislature that the court is a more reliable safeguard than even superior police officers." (emphasis supplied)
19. In view of the aforesaid judgment of the Constitution Bench, it must be held that the appellant has the right to file a complaint for prosecution of respondent No.2 in respect of the offences allegedly committed by him under the 1988 Act.
20. The argument of the learned Attorney General that the question of granting sanction for prosecution of a public servant charged with an offence under the 1988 Act arises only at the stage of taking cognizance and not before that is neither supported by the plain language of the section nor the judicial precedents relied upon by him. Though, the term `cognizance' has not been defined either in the 1988 Act or the CrPC, the same has acquired a definite meaning and connotation from various judicial precedents. In legal parlance cognizance is "taking judicial notice by the court of law, possessing jurisdiction, on a cause or matter presented before it so as to decide whether there is any basis for initiating proceedings and determination of the cause or matter judicially".
In R. R. Chari v. State of U.P. (1951) SCR 312, the three Judge Bench approved the following observations made by the Calcutta High Court in Superintendent and Remembrancer of Legal Affairs, West Bengal v. Abni Kumar Banerjee (supra): "What is taking cognizance has not been defined in the Criminal Procedure Code and I have no desire to attempt to define it.
It seems to me clear however that before it can be said that any magistrate has taken cognizance of any offence under section 190(1)(a), Criminal Procedure Code, he must not only have applied his mind to the contents of the petition but he must have done so for the purpose of proceeding in a particular way as indicated in the subsequent provisions of this Chapter - proceeding under section 200 and thereafter sending it for inquiry and report under section 202. When the magistrate applies his mind not for the purpose of proceeding under the subsequent sections of this Chapter, but for taking action of some other kind, e.g. ordering investigation under section 156(3), or issuing a search warrant for the purpose of the investigation, he cannot be said to have taken cognizance of the offence."
21. In Mohd. Khalid's case, the Court referred to Section 190 of the CrPC and observed : "In its broad and literal sense, it means taking notice of an offence. This would include the intention of initiating judicial proceedings against the offender in respect of that offence or taking steps to see whether there is any basis for initiating judicial proceedings or for other purposes. The word `cognizance' indicates the point when a Magistrate or a Judge first takes judicial notice of an offence. It is entirely a different thing from initiation of proceedings; rather it is the condition precedent to the initiation of proceedings by the 30 Magistrate or the Judge. Cognizance is taken of cases and not of persons."
22. In Pastor P. Raju's case, this Court referred to the provisions of Chapter XIV and Sections 190 and 196 (1-A) of the CrPC and observed : "There is no bar against registration of a criminal case or investigation by the police agency or submission of a report by the police on completion of investigation, as contemplated by Section 173 CrPC . If a criminal case is registered, investigation of the offence is done and the police submits a report as a result of such investigation before a Magistrate without the previous sanction of the Central Government or of the State Government or of the District Magistrate, there will be no violation of Section 196(1-A) CrPC and no illegality of any kind would be committed."
The Court then referred to some of the precedents including the judgment in Mohd. Khalid's case and observed : "It is necessary to mention here that taking cognizance of an offence is not the same thing as issuance of process. Cognizance is taken at the initial stage when the Magistrate applies his judicial mind to the facts mentioned in a complaint or to a police report or upon information received from any other person that an offence has been committed. The issuance of process is at a subsequent stage when after considering the material placed before it the court decides to proceed against the offenders against whom a prima facie case is made out."
23. In Kalimuthu's case, the only question considered by this Court was whether in the absence of requisite sanction under Section 197 CrPC , the Special Judge for CBI cases, Chennai did not have the jurisdiction to take cognizance of the alleged offences. The High Court had taken the view that Section 197 was not applicable to the appellant's case. Affirming the view taken by the High Court, this Court observed : "The question relating to the need of sanction under Section 197 of the Code is not necessarily to be considered as soon as the complaint is lodged and on the allegations contained therein.
This question may arise at any stage of the proceeding. The question whether sanction is necessary or not may have to be determined from stage to stage. Further, in cases where offences under the Act are concerned, the effect of Section 197, dealing with the question of prejudice has also to be noted."
24. In Raj Kumar Jain's case, this Court considered the question whether the CBI was required to obtain sanction from the prosecuting authority before approaching the Court for accepting the report under Section 173(2) of the CrPC. This question was considered in the backdrop of the fact that the CBI, which had investigated the case registered against the respondent under Section 5(2) read with Section 5(1)(e) of the 1947 Act found that the allegation made against the respondent could not be 32substantiated.
The Special Judge declined to accept the report submitted under Section 173(2) CrPC by observing that the CBI was required to place materials collected during investigation before the sanctioning authority and it was for the concerned authority to grant or refuse s
