Prior Sanction mandatory to prosecute Government Servant - SC
IN a judgement delivered by the Supreme Court on 1st October 2013, the question before the Court was, whether the Special Judge/Magistrate is justified in referring a private complaint made under Section 200 Cr. P.C. for investigation by the Deputy Superintendent of Police Karnataka Lokayukta, in exercise of powers conferred under Section 156(3) Cr. P.C. without the production of a valid sanction order under Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
It was submitted that the question of sanction is of paramount importance for protecting a public servant who has acted in good faith while performing his duties. The purpose of obtaining sanction is to see that the public servant be not unnecessarily harassed on a complaint, failing which it would not be possible for a public servant to discharge his duties without fear and favour.
The Counsel for the appellants raised the contention that the requirement of sanction is only procedural in nature and hence, directory. The Supreme Court did not agree and observed that once it is noticed that there was no previous sanction, the Magistrate cannot order investigation against a public servant while invoking powers under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C.
The law on the issue of sanction can be summarized to the effect that the question of sanction is of paramount importance for protecting a public servant who has acted in good faith while performing his duty. In order that the public servant may not be unnecessarily harassed on a complaint of an unscrupulous person, it is obligatory on the part of the executive authority to protect him... If the law requires sanction, and the court proceeds against a public servant without sanction, the public servant has a right to raise the issue of jurisdiction as the entire action may be rendered void ab-initio.