IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR THURSDAY, THE 3RD DECEMBER 2009 / 12TH AGRAHAYANA 1931 Crl.MC.No. 3661 of 2009() ------------------------------------ CC.18/2008 of ENQUIRY COMMISSIONER AND SPECIAL JUDGE, KOTTAYAM. .................... PETITIONER/ACCUSED --------------------------------- P.K. JAYANTHI, W/O. BABU C.NAIR, CLERK-CASHIER, MADAPPALLY S.C.B., MADAPPALLY, RESIDING AT SANKARAMANGALAM HOUSE, MADAPPALLY. BY ADV. MR.SIBY MATHEW MR.PHILIP J.VETTICKATTU MR.B.PREMNATH (E) RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT ------------------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, (INSPECTOR OF POLICE, VACB, KOTTAYAM UNIT, KOTTAYAM), REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR.B. VINOD. THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03/12/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: THE LOWR COURT CASE NUMBER SHOWN AS “C.C.18/08” IN THE CAUSE TITLE OF THE FINAL ORDER DATED 03/12/2009 IN CRL.MC.NO.3661/2009 STANDS CORRECTED AS “C.C.NO.226/2008” AS PER ORDER DATED 22/01/2010 IN CRL.MA.11/2010 IN CRL.MC.3661/2009. SD/- ASSISTANT REGISTRAR rs. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,J. ------------------------------------------ Crl.M.C.NO. 3661 OF 2009 ------------------------------------------ Dated 3rd December 2009 O R D E R Second accused in C.C.18/2008 on the file of Special Judge, (Vigilance), Kottayam taken cognizance for the offences under Sections 409, 477 (A), 471, 468 and 120(B) of Indian Penal Code on Annexure-A2 final report is the petitioner. This petition is filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure to quash the cognizance taken contending that learned Special Judge could not have taken cognizance without a sanction as provided under Section 19 of Prevention of Corruption Act. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned Public Prosecutor were heard. 3. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that though sanction to prosecute the petitioner is mandatory, sanction was not obtained from any authority competent to grant sanction and so the cognizance taken is not valid. 4. When sanction is necessary to prosecute Crmc 3661/09 2 the accused as provided under Section 19 of the Act and no sanction was produced before the Special Judge, he should not have taken cognizance of the offence. Hence order dated 2/4/2008 taking cognizance for the offence under Annexure-2 final report is quashed. Special Judge is directed to return the final report to the investigating officer. In such circumstances, it is not necessary to go into other contentions raised by the petitioner. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, JUDGE. uj. “C.C.18/2008” occurring in the first line of paragraph 1 of the final order dt.3.12.2009 in Crl.M.C.3661/09 is corrected as “C.C.226/08” ad per order dt.22.1.2010 in Crl.M.A.11/2010 in Crl.M.C.No.3661/09.