Summary
The Supreme Court referred to a larger Bench the conflicting-authority question whether prior sanction is needed before a Magistrate directs investigation under section 156(3) CrPC into alleged corruption by a public servant. It did not answer that question or overrule the conflicting decisions. Separately, it deleted Sunil Arora from the proceedings and complaint because the allegations concerned offices he had not held and the material did not establish the attributed role. Later inclusion remained open if lawfully ordered investigation disclosed material against him.
Issues
- Whether prior sanction was necessary for a section 156(3) investigation direction in a public-servant corruption complaint.
- Whether Sunil Arora should remain arrayed despite the mismatch between the alleged offices and his actual role.
Provisions considered
- Sections 156 and 190, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973The quoted provisions and authorities distinguished pre-cognizance investigation from taking cognizance. Whether the corruption-law sanction requirement nevertheless altered that position was left to a larger Bench. Application of mind under section 156(3) was required in any event. (¶¶ 10, 14, 15, 18, 21, 22, 33, 34, 36, 37)
- Section 19(1), Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988The bar on taking cognizance without prior sanction lay at the centre of conflicting decisions about investigation directions. The referring Bench did not finally determine its reach at that stage. (¶¶ 8, 9, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 33, 34, 36)
Held
- The authorities revealed a divergence on whether sanction was required before directing investigation under section 156(3) in a corruption case. A larger Bench of appropriate strength was required to settle the controversy. The acknowledged need for the Magistrate to apply his mind did not itself resolve that distinct legal issue. (¶¶ 18, 21, 22, 25, 26, 27, 31, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 51)
- The complaint attributed conduct to the PHED Principal Secretary or Chief Secretary, whereas the first respondent was Principal Secretary to the Chief Minister. No relevant role of that office was alleged. His presence at one meeting, without signing the minutes or an apparent decision-making role, did not justify retaining him by treating the discrepancy as a mere misdescription. (¶¶ 4, 39, 40, 41, 43, 45, 47)
- His name was struck from the present proceedings and the complaint. The order did not prevent future inclusion if a lawfully directed investigation produced material against him; it was not an unconditional immunity from investigation or prosecution. (¶¶ 44, 46, 48, 49)
Result
Main and connected sanction questions referred to a larger Bench. First respondent deleted from proceedings and complaint, without prejudice to later inclusion on material emerging in lawful investigation; deletion application allowed without costs.