The
Supreme Court, while hearing cases related to former Karnataka Chief Minister
B.S. Yediyurappa on February 28, deliberated on the applicability of the 2018
amendment to the Prevention of Corruption Act (PC Act), which introduced
Section 17A mandating prior sanction for investigation.
Key Observations by the Supreme Court
The Court
remarked that once an order for investigation under Section 156(3) of the
Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) is passed, the requirement for prior sanction
under Section 17A of the PC Act does not arise. The bench, comprising Justices
J.B. Pardiwala and Manoj Misra, questioned whether an investigating officer
could defer an investigation citing the need for government sanction after a
court-ordered probe under Section 156(3) CrPC.
Legal Issues Under Consideration
The bench
is hearing five cases against Yediyurappa, each arising from distinct factual
backgrounds but with a common legal issue—whether prior sanction was necessary
to take cognizance of the corruption allegations and whether the 2018 amendment
alters the legal position.
Arguments by Senior Advocate Siddharth Luthra
Representing
Yediyurappa, Senior Advocate Siddharth Luthra argued:
- A private complaint filed
against Yediyurappa during his tenure as Chief Minister was quashed due to
the absence of sanction.
- A second complaint, based on
the same allegations, was filed and later revived by the Karnataka High
Court in 2021, despite its initial dismissal by the Trial Court in 2016.
- The High Court failed to
consider the legal change post-2018, which mandates prior sanction even
after a public servant leaves office.
- Since the first complaint
attained finality and was unchallenged, the second complaint was not
maintainable.
Luthra
further contended that multiple judgments affirm that sanction cannot be
bypassed by waiting for a public servant to demit office.
Court's Response
Justice
Pardiwala posed key questions regarding the sequence of legal actions:
- Whether an order under
Section 156(3) Crpc itself amounts to cognizance, thereby necessitating
sanction at that stage.
- Whether sanction under
Section 19(1)(a) of the PC Act applies at the time of taking cognizance of
the charge sheet.
- Whether the restoration of
the complaint brings the case back to the stage of Section 156(3), making
prior sanction under Section 17A applicable at that point.
The Court
suggested that an order under Section 156(3) is an interlocutory order and
emphasized that the issue should focus on the stage at which cognizance was
taken.
Arguments on Retrospective Application of Section
17A
The
retrospective applicability of Section 17A remains pending before a three-judge
bench. However, Senior Advocate Vikas Kumar referenced a recent Supreme Court
judgment that dismissed Union Minister H.D. Kumaraswamy’s plea, where both
judges agreed that Section 17A does not apply retrospectively.
Current Status
The
Supreme Court will continue hearing arguments on a later date.
Case
Details:
B.S. Yediyurappa v. A. Alam Pasha & Ors., SLP(Crl) No. 520/2021 and
others.
