Court upholds trial court's decision to proceed with prosecution, dismissing petition under Cr.P.C. and Prevention of Corruption Act.

C.S. Puttaraju Versus State of Karnataka and Ors.

C.S. Puttaraju Versus State of Karnataka and Ors. - TMI Issues Involved:
1. Sanction under Section 197 of Cr.P.C.
2. Sanction for Prosecution under Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act.
3. Prevention of abuse of process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice.

Detailed Analysis:

I. Sanction under Section 197 of Cr.P.C.
The petitioner, a Member of the Legislative Assembly and Member of the Mysore Urban Development Authority (MUDA), was accused of obtaining a site allotment through false declarations. The court evaluated whether the alleged acts were committed while acting in the discharge of official duty, which is essential for requiring sanction under Section 197 of Cr.P.C. The court cited precedents, emphasizing that criminal conspiracy or misconduct by a public servant is not part of official duties, hence, no sanction is necessary. The court concluded that the petitioner's actions did not warrant sanction under Section 197 of Cr.P.C. and rejected the petitioner's contention on this ground.

II. Sanction for Prosecution under Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act
The petitioner argued that sanction for prosecution was required under the amended Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 2018, which applies retrospectively. The court analyzed the timeline, noting the charge sheet was filed before the amendment, and the cognizance was taken post-amendment. The court held that the amendment, which requires sanction for prosecution even after retirement, is prospective. It emphasized the principle that procedural amendments imposing new obligations are not retrospective unless explicitly stated. The court referred to the General Clauses Act, 1897, and various judgments, concluding that the amendment does not affect investigations or proceedings initiated before its enactment. Therefore, the court ruled that no sanction was required under the pre-amended Act, dismissing the petitioner's argument.

III. To Prevent Abuse of Process of Any Court or Otherwise to Secure the Ends of Justice
The trial court's decision to proceed without requiring sanction was upheld, though the reasoning was partially faulty. The court emphasized that the correct legal position is that the Speaker is the competent authority for sanctioning prosecution of elected representatives. Despite the flawed reasoning, the court affirmed the trial court's conclusion to proceed with the prosecution, citing the "Tipsy Coachman Doctrine," which allows for the affirmation of a correct judgment despite flawed reasoning. The court stressed that preventing abuse of the judicial process and securing the ends of justice warranted a full trial in this case.

Conclusion:
The court dismissed the petition, affirming the trial court's decision to proceed with the prosecution without requiring sanction under both Section 197 of Cr.P.C. and the pre-amended Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The court emphasized the principles of preventing abuse of process and securing the ends of justice, ensuring that the prosecution continues for a fair trial.