The High Court of Kerala while addressing a revision petition addressed the need for sanction under Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and the relevance of claiming discharge of application under the said provision.
Brief Facts of the Case:
A vigilance enquiry was initiated by the vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau Against the misappropriation in connection with the construction of a new building for a bank after which a a report was submitted and order of the registration of a vigilance case was issued followed by a FIR. Subsequently, the petitioner was found to be involved in the crime. A final report was filed after the investigation before the Enquiry Commission and Special Judge following which the Special Judge took Cognizance and the case was transferred to the Court below and the petitioner was released on bail. The petitioner filed an application for discharge on
the ground that there was no sufficient ground to proceed against him. The court below upon after hearing the submission of the petitioner and the prosecution formed the opinion that there was ground for presuming that the petitioner has committed the offence and accordingly dismissed the application for discharge. Challenging the said order, the petitioner moved up to the High Court with the said revision petition.
Contentions of the Petitioner:
The learned counsel submitted that upon reading the FIR, the statement of witnesses and the documents on record would reveal that there was no sufficient ground for proceeding against the revision petitioner. He also stated that the petition is eligible for a sanction under Section 19 of the PC Act.
Contentions of the Respondents:
The counsel stated that there were sufficient materials on record to show the involvement of the petitioner in the crime and the court below was right in dismissing the application. He also contended that at the time of the cognizance of the offence the petitioner was not holding the office as the Vice President of the bank and hence a sanction under Section 19 of the PC Act was irrelevant.
Observations of the High Court:
The Court observed that the bank in question falls within the definition of the PC Act, since it was a co-operative bank registered under the Co-operative Societies Act. The Court referenced K. Karunakaran Vs. State of Kerala, 2006 Latest Caselaw 853 SC and stated that the petitioner being the Vice President of the bank was a public servant during the time of the alleged incident but he had already retired at the time of the cognizance of the offence, hence no sanction under Section 19 of the P.C Act was necessary.
The Court ascertained that claiming discharge on the basis of want of sanction under section 19 of the PC Act was not relevant. The Court also held that there was prima facie evidence to prove the involvement of the petitioner in the crime and hence the power under Section 239 Cr.P.C. couldn’t be exercised either. The court ruled that there was no illegality or impropriety in the impugned order.
Decision:
The Court rejected the application for discharge and dismissed the petition.
Case Title: A.Abdulla Haji V. State of Kerala & Ors.
Case No: CRL.REV.PET NO. 96 OF 2022
Coram: Honourable Dr. Justice Kauser Edappagath
Advocates For Petitioner: Advs. V.A. Satheesh Anand V. S, V.T. Madhavanunni.
Advocates For Respondent: Public Prosecutor, High Court of Kerala and Smt S Rekha Sr Pp, Sri A Rajesh SPL PP, VACB.
Read Judgement @LatestLaws.com:
Picture Source :