Discharge plea in corruption cases not maintainable after trial court has framed charges: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court on Thursday emphasised that a discharge application in cases under the Prevention of Corruption Act (POCA) cannot be entertained if it is filed in the middle of trial after the trial court has taken cognisance of the matter and framed charges. [State of Karnataka Lokayukta Police vs S Subbegowda].A bench of Justices Aniruddha Bose and Bela M Trivedi noted that for offences involving public servants guilty of criminal misconduct under the POCA discharge applications can be allowed only if the accused would face injustice and after recording reasons. This is in view of a specific bar contained in Section 19 (3) of the POCA, the Court explained. The Court, therefore, set aside a Karnataka High Court order that had allowed a discharge application at the stage of trial after the framing of charges."[The] findings recorded by the Special Judge could not have been and should not have been reversed or altered by the High Court in the petition filed by the respondent challenging the said order of the Special Judge, in view of the specific bar contained in sub-section (3) of Section 19, and that too without recording any opinion as to how a failure of justice had in fact been occasioned to the respondent-accused as contemplated in the said sub-section (3)," the Supreme Court's order stated. .The top court observed that discharge applications not pressed earlier but filed at an advanced stage of the trial are not even maintainable."As a matter of fact, such an interlocutory application seeking discharge in the midst of trial would also not be maintainable. Once the cognizance was taken by the Special Judge and the charge was framed against the accused, the trial could neither have been stayed nor scuttled in the midst of it in view of Section 19(3) of the said Act," the Court said.The discharge application, in this case, was allowed on the ground that there was no proper sanction to prosecute the accused under the POCA. The bench, however, noted that the issue highlighted in the discharge application, that is, the validity of sanction, was raised earlier as well but not pressed for at that time. The Court proceeded to observe that the only option left for the accused, in such a situation, was the raise this issue during final arguments in the trial..The Court was dealing with a case where an executive engineer at the Karnataka Urban Water Supply and Drainage Board, Mandya Division, S Subbegowda stood accused of corruption.Trial proceedings in the case began in 2011 after the State government gave its sanction for prosecution.It was only in 2018, during a third round of litigation before the High Court, that Subbegowda's discharge application was allowed on the ground that it should have been the Water Supply and Drainage Board and not the government that ought to have granted sanction.The State Lokayukta, in turn, filed an appeal challenging the High Court's order of discharge. .While setting aside the High Court order, the Supreme Court explained that the only stages of proceedings when an accused can raise the issue of sanction are: (a) when the Court takes cognisance of the offence, (b) when the charges are to be framed or (c) when the trial is complete.In this case, there was no scope for allowing a discharge when the trial was at an advanced stage and when multiple prosecution witnesses had been examined and charges already framed after taking cognisnace of the offence, the Court observed. "Sub-section (3) [of Section 19 of the Act] clearly forbids the court in appeal, confirmation or revision, the interference with the order passed by the Special Judge on the ground that the sanction was bad, save and except in cases where the appellate or revisional court finds that the failure of justice had occurred by such invalidity," the Court said. .The bench further observed that High Court had erred in interfering with the trial court's finding that the sanction granted to prosecute the accused was valid since the State government was an authority that was superior to the Water Supply and Drainage Board..The appeal by the State Lokayukta was, therefore, allowed.The accused was given the liberty by the Supreme Court to raise the question of sanction at the stage of final arguments, and the trial was directed to be proceeded with expeditiously..Advocates Shubhranshu Padhi, Rajeshwar Shankar, Niroop Sukriti, and Jay Nirupama appeared for the Karnataka Lokayukta.Senior Advocate HN Shashidhara with advocates Balaji Srinivasan, Devamshu Behl, Shiva Krishnamurti, Rohan Dewan, and Lakshmi Rao represented S Subbegowda..[Read judgment]