K. KARUNAKARAN vs STATE OF KERALA

The Supreme Court addressed the issue of whether sanction was necessary for prosecution under Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and Section 120B of IPC, holding that since the appellant was not in office at the time of cognizance, no sanction was required. The Court distinguished the case from R. S. Nayak v. A.R. Antulay, asserting that the allegations of mala fides were not substantiated and that the existence of materials necessitating investigation was the key consideration. Ultimately, the Court upheld the prosecution's validity despite the State's conflicting affidavits regarding withdrawal of the case.