Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947; s. 6(2)/Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988; ss. 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 13, 15 and 19/Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; ss. 2, 41, 154, 173 and 197:

Prosecution of public servant-Protection from-Sanction before prosecution-Necessities of Held: Principle of immunity protects only those acts of a public servant performed in exercise of function of the Government- But it does not protect criminal acts of a public servant though performed under the colour of authority but in reality performed for its own pleasure/ benefit-Protection so given is to protect a responsible public servant against institution of vexatious criminal proceedings for offences allegedly committed by him while acting/purporting discharge of official duties-Sanction to prosecute, if granted, confers on Government complete control of prosecution- In terms of Section 197 Cr.P.C., bar on exercise of power by Court to take cognizance of any offence against public servant is absolute and complete- Protection afforded to public servant available subject to fulfilment of certain conditions-Conditions specified under the provisions are mandatory in nature-Protection available only to those acts/omission purportedly done in exercise of official duties-If act done in course of service but not in discharge of official duties bar to prosecute without sanction from competent authority not available to public servant-Sanction need not be obtained at the time of lodging of complaint but at any stage of proceedings.

Public Servant-Prosecution Information to Magistrate-Framing of charges-Requirements of Held: Information/Report to Magistrate sufficient elaborate details not necessary-At the stage of framing of charges, material available on record need not be analysed minutely-Sanctioning authority need not separately specify each of offences against accused public servant.

Complaint-Misuse of office by public servant-Plea of malafides- Held: Plea of malafides not only required to be clearly pleaded but specifically proved-Merely because the political opponent was the complainant that does not per se lead to such an inference to dismiss the complaint/no notice should be taken thereof Hence the plea of malafides as raised cannot be maintained in the facts and circumstances of the case,

Constitution of India, 1950; Articles 233 and 234:

Appointment of special Judge to a Special Court-High Court- Jurisdiction and power of Held: In the facts and circumstances of the case, Articles 233 and 234 not attracted.

Section 154 Cr.P.C.-FIR-Legal principles governing registration of a cognizable offence-Discussed.

Words and Phrases:

"Absence of sanction' and 'Invalidity on account of non-application of mind-Distinction between-Discussed.

Abuse of Office-Test-Requirement of-Discussed.

Criminal Misconduct Requirements of Discussed in the context of s. 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

'Failure of justice', 'in the opinion of-Meaning of in the context of sub- section (3) and (4) of s.19 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

"Incuria Meaning of.

Public Functionary-Public servant-Abuse of office-Mischief Rule- Invoking of.

Questions which arose for determination in these appeals were about validity of proceedings initiated against appellant, the then Chief Minister of Punjab and Ors, under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and/or the Indian Penal Code, 1860; and also as to the necessities of sanction before prosecuting them in terms of s. 197 Cr.P.C. and the legality thereof.

Appellants contended that the proceedings were initiated against them on the basis of complaints which were lodged mala fids and as an act of political vendetta; that allegations are vague, lack in details and even if accepted at the face value, did not show the commission of any offence; that though the High Court primarily relied on a Constitution Bench decision of this Court in RS Nayak v. A.R. Antulay, [1984] 2 SCC 183, the said decision was rendered in the context of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 (Old Act); that the provisions contained in Section 6 thereof are in pari materia to Section 19 of the 1988 Act; the effect of Section 6(2) of the Old Act corresponding to Section 19(2) of the Act was lost sight of; that the voluminous charge sheets filed are extremely vague and do not indicate commission of any definite offence; that the offences alleged to have been committed under IPC had close nexus with the workmen who are on official duty and therefore sanction under Section 197 Cr.P.C. is mandatory; that even offences punishable under Sections 468, 471 and 120B have been in certain cases held to be relatable to the official duty thereby mandating sanction in terms of Section 197 of the Code; that the mala fide intention is clear as all these cases were registered at Mohali Police Station which was declared to be the police station for the purpose of investigation of the concerned cases and new Court was established for the trial of the concerned cases and jurisdiction was conferred on one officer without following the due process of consultation with the High Court. These are indicative of the fact that action was taken with mala fide intention only to harass them; that this was a case of casus omissus; that a public servant who continues to remain so (on transfer) has got to be protected as long as he continues to hold his office; that even if the offending act is committed by a public servant in his former capacity and even if such a public servant has not abused his subsequent office still such a public servant needs protection of Section 19(1) of the Act; that charge sheet is a bundle of confusions and no definite material is placed on record to substantiate the allegation of commission of any offence; and that in the documents filed only Section 13(1) of the Act has been only mentioned and not the exact alleged infraction.

Respondent-State and others submitted that the decision in RS. Nayak's case correctly lays down the position; that the allegations of mala fide are clearly unfounded; that no new court was established and in fact Special Judge of Special Court who was appointed only after consultation with the High Court, he was only designated to hear the cases; that the decision in R.S. Nayak's case is not per incuriam as contended. Under Section 19(1) of the Act previous sanction is prescribed for a public servant if (a) he is a public servant at the time of taking cognizance of the offence and (b) the accused continues to hold office alleged to have been mis-used at the time of taking cognizance of the offence by the Court; and that where the public servant has ceased to be a public servant in one capacity by ceasing to hold office which is alleged to have been misused, the fortuitous circumstance of the accused being in another capacity holding an entirely different public office is irrelevant. 

Dismissing the appeals, the Court.