TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2005 (10) TMI 594
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... in Crime No. R.C. 34A/1994 was registered. A charge sheet was filed therein and the Special Judge for CBI cases, Bangalore by an order dated 16.7.1999 took cognizance of an offence under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short "the Act"). In the trial, 12 witnesses were examined. The statement of Respondent under Section 313 of the Code was also recorded. 4. The learned Special Judge formulated two points for his determination: "1. Whether the prosecution has proved that the sanction accorded for the prosecution of the accused in this case is a valid sanction? 2. Whether the prosecution has further proved beyond any reasonable doubt that the accused has committed the offences punishable under Section 7 and under Section 13(1)(d) R/w. Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988?" 5. In regard to point No. 1, the learned Special Judge was of the opinion that the sanction for prosecution accorded by PW11 was illegal and in that view of the matter, the same was determined in favour of the Respondent. In view of his findings as regard point No. 1, the learned Special Judge did not record any finding on point No. 2 and directed as under: "Accus....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....earned Additional Solicitor General appearing on behalf of the Appellant would contend that the High Court committed a manifest error in passing the impugned orders insofar as it failed to take into consideration the ingredients of the provisions of Section 300 of the Code. 11. Relying on the decisions of this Court in Baij Nath Prasad Tripathi v. the State of Bhopal 1957CriLJ597 and Mohammad Safi v. The State of West Bengal 1966CriLJ75 , Mr. Sharan would submit that in a case where a proper order of sanction was not passed, the court will have no jurisdiction to take cognizance thereof and as such a judgment passed therein shall be illegal and of no effect and in that view of the matter, subsequent trial with proper sanction is not barred. 12. Mr. Basava Prabhu S. Patil, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondents would submit that Chapter XVIII of the Code does not envisage an order of discharge or dropping of the proceedings after a charge has been framed, witnesses are examined, the statement of the accused under Section 313 of the Code is taken and defence witnesses are examined. 13. Chapter XIX of the Code provides for trial of warrant-cases by Magistrates. An a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....p;(1) A person who has once been tried by a Court of competent jurisdiction for an offence and convicted or acquitted of such offence shall, while such conviction or acquittal remains in force, not be liable to be tried again for the same offence, nor on the same facts for any other offence for which a different charge from the one made against him might have been made under sub-section (1) of section 221, or for which he might have been convicted under sub-section (2) thereof." 19. The essential conditions for invoking the bar under said provision are: (i) the court had requisite jurisdiction to take cognizance and tried the accused; and (ii) the court has recorded an order of conviction or acquittal, and such conviction/ acquittal remains in force. 20. The question came up for consideration before the Federal Court in Basdeo Agarwalla v. King Emperor wherein it was held that if a proceeding is initiated without sanction, the same would be null and void. 21. In Yusofalli Mulla Noorbhoy v. the King, it was held: "16... A court cannot be competent to hear and determine a prosecution the institution of which is prohibited by law and Section 14 prohibits the instituti....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ion had been obtained." 24. In Mohammad Safi (supra), this Court held: "6. It is true that Mr. Ganguly could properly take cognizance of the offence and, therefore, the proceedings before him were in fact not vitiated by reason of lack of jurisdiction. But we cannot close our eyes to the fact that Mr. Ganguly was himself of the opinion - and indeed he had no option in the matter because he was bound by the decisions of the High Court - that he could not take cognizance of the offence and consequently was incompetent to try the appellant. Where a court comes to such a conclusion, albeit erroneously, it is difficult to appreciate how that court can absolve the person arraigned before it completely of the offence alleged against him. Where a person has done something which is made punishable by law he is liable to face a trial and this liability cannot come to an end merely because the court before which he was placed for trial forms an opinion that it has no jurisdiction to try him or that it has no jurisdiction to take cognizance of the offence alleged against him. Where, therefore, a court says, though erroneously, that it was not competent to take cognizance of the offence it h....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....cquittal, a retrial may not be directed. Interpreting Section 465 of the Code, this Court in Bhooraji (supra) held: "22. The bar against taking cognizance of certain offences or by certain courts cannot govern the question whether the court concerned is "a court of competent jurisdiction", e.g. courts are debarred from taking cognizance of certain offences without sanction of certain authorities. If a court took cognizance of such offences, which were later found to be without valid sanction, it would not become the test or standard for deciding whether that court was "a court of competent jurisdiction". It is now well settled that if the question of sanction was not raised at the earliest opportunity the proceedings would remain unaffected on account of want of sanction. This is another example to show that the condition precedent for taking cognizance is not the standard to determine whether the court concerned is "a court of competent jurisdiction". 28. However, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondents may be right in his submissions as regards the right of an accused for a speedy trial having regard to the provisions contained in Article 21 of the Constitut....