Can Vigilance Court Examine Validy Of Order Refusing Sanction For Prosecution: Kerala HC To Consider

The bench of Justice C. Jayachandran was hearing a Criminal M.C. challenging the order of the Special Judge that directed the Director Board of the Society to decide whether to grant or refuse the prosecution sanction for prosecuting the accused by independently applying its mind and to decide the question of prosecution of sanction.

Advocate B. Pramod appeared for the Appellant.

Brief Facts-

The investigating officer filed a petition stating that the Director Board of Varanam Puthanangady Milk Co-operative Society Ltd. refused to grant prosecution sanction against the accused Secretary of the Society, under Sections 13(1)(c) and (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (P.C. Act). However, since offences under Sections 409 and 477A of IPC are prima facie established, the officer requested the case records be transferred to the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court - I as no prosecution sanction is required for those IPC charges. The Court directed the Functional Registrar to review the society’s records and report on the refusal of the sanction which indicated lack of proper consideration by the competent authority.

The High Court noted that a larger issue is seen espoused as regards the power of the Special Judge under the P.C. Act to declare the refusal of prosecution sanction under Section 19 of the Act as invalid.

“Whether the Special Court can examine the issue regarding the application of mind by the sanctioning authority for refusing the sanction is the question, which requires to be addressed.”, the Court observed.

The Court further noted that another ground on which the order of the Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge is challenged is the absence of prosecution sanction, even for ordering investigation under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C., as held in Anil Kumar and others v. M.K. Aiyappa and another [(2013) 10 SCC 705].

The Court listed the matter for September 27, 2024.