A Special Judge under the Prevention of Corruption Act cannot take cognizance of a private complaint against a public servant

Kerala High Court Sets Aside Order Against Ex-ADGP, Relegates Corruption Complaint to Pre-Cognizance Stage Court mandates sanction for proceeding against public servants; observations against Kerala Chief Minister expunged.

In a significant ruling, the Kerala High Court, presided over by Justice A. Badharudeen, has set aside an order by the Special Judge under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, which had proceeded against M.R. Ajith Kumar, former Additional Director General of Police (ADGP), without the requisite sanction under Section 19(1) of the Act. This decision in CRL.MC No. 7741 of 2025 and CRL.MC No. 8392 of 2025 underscores the importance of obtaining prior sanction for prosecuting public servants, irrespective of whether the stage is pre-cognizance or post-cognizance.

The case stemmed from a private complaint filed by Neyyattinkara P. Nagaraj, alleging that Ajith Kumar amassed disproportionate assets during his tenure from 1994 to 2024. The complaint was initially supported by two inquiry reports from the Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau (VACB), which the Special Judge had rejected. However, the High Court found that the Special Judge lacked jurisdiction to reject these reports, noting that such matters fall under the purview of constitutional courts.

Justice Badharudeen ruled that the complaint against Ajith Kumar must return to the pre-cognizance stage, with directions for the complainant to obtain the necessary sanction from the competent authority under Section 19(1) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. The court clarified that the cognizance of an offence involves judicial application of mind to the contents of the complaint and materials filed, requiring a prior sanction when the accused is a public servant.

The judgment also addressed disparaging remarks made against Kerala's Chief Minister in the Special Judge's order, expunging them from the record. The High Court emphasized that such observations were unwarranted, especially as the Chief Minister had accepted the inquiry reports as part of his official duties.

This ruling reaffirms the procedural safeguards embedded in the Prevention of Corruption Act, ensuring that public servants are not prosecuted without due process. The judgment further reinforces the legal precedent that courts must adhere to statutory requirements for sanction before proceeding against public officials.

The High Court's decision is expected to impact how corruption complaints against public servants are handled in the judiciary, emphasizing the need for procedural adherence and respect for statutory mandates.

Bottom Line:

A Special Judge under the Prevention of Corruption Act cannot take cognizance of a private complaint against a public servant without prior sanction under Section 19(1) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, irrespective of whether the stage is pre-cognizance or post-cognizance.

Statutory Provision(s): Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 Section 19(1), Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 Section 223.

M.R. Ajith Kumar v. State of Kerala, (Kerala) : Law Finder Doc Id # 2811669