Prior Sanction Of Magistrate Not Mandatory For Investigating Non-Cognizable Offence Along With Cognizable Offence: SC

Key takeaways

• The Apex Court passed a judgement stating that prior sanction of the Magistrate is not required for investigating cases of non-cognizable offences along with cognizable offences.
• The Bench comprised of Justices MR Shah and AS Bopanna and the judgement was given in the case of The State of Jammu and Kashmir V. Dr Saleem ur Rehman.
• The Court revoked the judgement of the High Court of Jammu and Kashmir which quashed the FIR filed against the accused of offences under the J&K Prevention of Corruption Act and criminal conspiracy under Section 120B of the Ranbir Penal Code.
• The High Court had quashed the FIR on grounds that prior sanction of the Magistrate was not obtained before the criminal case was investigated which was non-cognizable as per the Ranbir Penal Code under Section155 of the J&K Code of Criminal Procedure.

Background

• In this case, an FIR had been lodged against the respondent under Section 5(1)(d) r/w 5(2) of the J&K Prevention of Corruption Act, 2006 and Section 120B of the Ranbir Penal Code alleging inter alia that during 2010-11, the Director Health Services, Kashmir misappropriated a huge amount of money along with other accused by way of purchasing sub-standard medical kits under National Rural Health Mission at high prices and violated the conditions of supply orders placed by the department.
• The accused approached the High Court and seek for revoking such FIR by exercising its extra-ordinary jurisdiction and the High Court revoked the entire criminal proceedings against the respondent.
• The appellant was aggrieved by the judgement of the High Court of Jammu and Kashmir and filed an appeal by moving to the Supreme Court.

Courts Observation

• The Supreme Court observed that the offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act are substantive offences. When an offence under the PC Act is committed along with the offence of conspiracy, the prior sanction of the Magistrate is not required.
• The Supreme Court stated that the High Court’s judgement was contrary to the judgement of the Supreme Court in the case of Pravin Chandra Mody V. State of Andhra Pradesh, 1965 (1) SCR 269 where it was held that the prior sanction of the Magistrate was not required while investigating a non-cognizable offence along with cognizable offences.
• The Apex Court further stated that just because an offence of conspiracy may be involved, investigation of the substantive offence under the PC Act which is cognizable does not require the sanction of the Magistrate as it would delay and affect the investigation process.

Courts Order

• The Court ordered that the judgement of the High Court was ultra vires and hence was revoked and set aside.
• The Court ordered for the criminal proceedings against the accused which were under Sections 5(1)(d) r/w 5(2) of the J&K PC Act, 2006 and 120B of the Ranbir Penal Code was to be investigated and processed further by the authorised officer. The appeal was allowed.

Questions

• Does delay in the investigation of criminal proceedings tend to affect the process?
• Do you think that the grounds on which the High Court passed the judgement was fair?

Share your views in the comments section below.