M. Wahajuddin, J.
1. By his order dated 23-8- 1980 Sri Ram Swarup, the then III Additional Sessions Special Judge, Etawah, has discharged the opposite party accused person, Haripal Singh. The State has prayed that the accused person be convicted and sentenced, maintaining that the impugned order is illegal, improper and perverse. Two revisions have been prefered by Braj Krishna Tandon. In revision No. 1464 of 1980 the prayer is that the order dated 16-6-1980 passed by Sri D. S. Ram, the then Special Judge be set aside and the court be asked to direct the Investigating Officer to submit charge-sheet, after obtaining the necessary sanction, in the second Revision No. 1465 of 1980 the prayer is that the order dated 23-8-1980 (supra) be set aside (and) the special Judge be directed to take cognizance on the basis of the charge-sheet. It is also prayed that this Court may pass further orders as it deems fit.
2. No one has appeared on behalf of the opposite party, Harpal Singh. I have heard all the aforesaid three revisions in his absence. On a perusal of the judgment dated 23-8-1980 of the III Additional Sessions Judge, Etawah, I find that this case has a checkered history and a number of illegalities and irregularities have been committed. It would appear that Brai Krishna Tandon preferred an application before the Superintendent of Police, Vigilance Department, Kanpur, alleging that the opposite party accused Harpal Singh, before whom certain Sales Tax matters concerning the firm of which Sri B. K. Tandon happened to be a partner were pending, demanded a huge amount as bribe and ultimately the matter has been settled for Rs. 500/-. The Deputy Superintendent of Police (Vigilance, Kanpur, who investigated the case of alleged passing of bribe submitted a final report on 5-5-1979 to the court, laying down three conclusions quoted in the judgment of the Additional Special Judge. The then Special Judge, Etawah, passed an order dated 10-5-1979 observing that he has seen the report of the Public Prosecutor and has gone through the record and agrees with the Public Prosecutor that there is no justification for accepting the final report. Haripal Singh accused moved a writ petition before the High Court, but it did not stay the proceedings before the lower court. Later, on 12-8-1978, the accused person moved an application registered as Misc. Case before the Special Judge for recalling and reviewing the earlier order dated 10-5-1979 or for passing further orders. Another application was also moved on 8-12-1979 for review of the earlier order and a further application was moved for expediting the disposal of the application. The then Special Judge disposed of the matter by an order dated 16-3-1980 holding that the earlier order refusing to accept the final report was correct and the case shall proceed and fixed 20-6-1980, for recording the statement of the accused person and for framing the charge.
3. Later, the case was transferred to the Special Judge, Sri Ram Swarup. Sri Ram Swarup in paragraph 17 of his judgment observed that any cognizance could not be taken on the basis of the final report. He further referred to the conclusions arrived at by the Investigating Officer. He has then referred to the evidence in proof. The Special Judge observed that the immediate motive for acceptance of oribe 'appears to be remote. The court also observed that as the case diary did not disclose any prima facie case, the investigating agency did not obtain any sanction. It has also observed that such sanction is necessary. I am purposely refraining from discussing the evidence on merits because that may embarrass the Special Judge to take his independent view in the matter. It would suffice to observe that the Sessions Judge has himself referred to some pieces of evidence as circumstances, although at the same time observing that such circumstantial evidence can be explained away in some other manner.
4. Section 482, Cr.P.C. vests this Court with the powers to undo the abuse of the process of the court, while such abuse has taken place in this case, I may refer to the illegalities one by one.
5. The Special Judge has observed that cognizance could not have been taken on a final report. Once the matter had been decided otherwise earlier holding that cognizance could be taken on final report as well, the Special Judge to whom this case was transferred could not review that order as to give any such finding or make any such observations in his judgment. The Code of Criminal Procedure does not vest either the Magistrates or the Sessions Judges with the power to review. I may just cite two cases on the point, i. e., State of Orissa v. Ram Chander : 1979CriLJ33 and Naresh v. State of U. P. : 1981CriLJ1044 . In the case of Gyanendra Kumar Gupta v. State (1980 All WC 504 :1980 Cri LJ 1349, following some earlier pronouncement of the Supreme Court it has been observed that the Magistrate is competent to take cognizance of the offence under Section 190(1)(b) despite adverse report of the police.
6. In the present case however actually this, could not be done, as Under Section 6 of the Prevention of Corruption Act a prior sanction of the appointing authority was requisite before any cognizance Under Section 161 IPC or Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act could be taken. This would be fully borne out by the language of Section 6 of the Prevention of Corruption Act. which runs as follows;-
6. (1) No court shall take cognizance of an offence punishable Under Section 161 or Section 164 or Section 165 or 165A of the Indian Penal Code or under Sub-section (2) of Section 5 of this Act, alleged to have been committed by a public servant, except with the previous sanction-
(a) in the case of a person who is employed in connection with the affairs of the Union and is not removeable from his office save by or with the sanction of the Central Government, of the Central Govt.
(b) in the case of a person who is employed in connection with the affairs of a State and is not removable from his office save by or with the sanction of. the State Government, of the State Govt.
(c) in the case of any other person, of the Authority competent to remove him from his office.
(2) Where for any reason whatsoever any doubt arises whether the previous sanction as required under Sub-section (1) should be given by the Central or State Government or any other Authority, such sanction shall be given by that Government or Authority would have been competent to remove the public servant from his office at the time when offence was alleged to have been committed.
7. learned Counsel for the revisionist relied upon the case of Megh Ilai v. State of Mysore AIR (Sic) Under Section 197, Cr.P.C. Actually to come to a conclusion whether a sanction Under Section 197, Cr.P.C. is required, the court has to enter into discussion whether the act done was purported to be an act done in capacity of a public servant. If it was not so and was not in the discharge of such duties and was a private act of the individual in his private capacity, then the bar would not be attracted. This, however, is not the position with regard to act Under Section 6 of the Prevention of Corruption Act. The provisions of that section constitute an absolute bar to take cognizance of the offences Under Section 161, IPC and Section 5(2) of the prevention of Corruption Act, irrespective of the capacity. The Prevention of Corruption Act is a special Act under which the Government servants can be prosecuted for certain matters even if not covered under the IPC The legislature has therefore, simultaneously taken adequate precautions as safeguards to such government servants by enacting that a sanction under Section 6 is a. must before the cognizance itself. Rather, the trend of the ruling is that it is not purely a formal matter and the sanctioning authority has to go through the entire evidence before it records any sanction. That being the position, the cogriizancfc taken in this case itself is bad and the entire proceedings from the stage of the submission of the final report dated 5-5-1979 is to be quashed. It has become necessary to exercise the inherent powers in the face of the various illegar lities that have been committed.
8. It is hereby further directed that the Special Judge shall either accept the final report or direct further investigation in its discretion. It would, however, not take cognizance Under Section 190(1)(b) or (1)(c) of the Cr.P.C. unless in addition to the materials contained in the police papers there is a valid sanction for the prosecution of the accused person. If the State desires to prosecute, it can give a protest application or at least furnish a sanction. If the other revisionist wants the court to move in the matter, he can do so by a protest application, but there must be a sanction of the State Government be fore the special Judge would take cognizance The special Judge could not have taken cognizance and proceeded in the matter as to discharge the opposite party. The en-1 tire proceedings in this case are illegal. I may in that connection' refer to 1969 Cri LJ 1384(Mangvesh Jaiwan v. State). There are other pronouncements also on the point. In fact, the very cognizance could not have been tafcen,1 meaning thereby that the Special Judges could not pass any order of discharge or rather any order which may be is part of the trial.
9. In the result, all the three revisions are partly allowed and the impugned orders dated 16-6-80 and 23-8-1980 including the order of discharge1 are hereby quashed and the entire proceedings beyond the date of submission of final report is also quashed. The Special Judge is directed to proceed in the matter in accordance with the observations made in the body of the judgment.. The lower courts record may be sent back at an early date.