BS Yediyurappa v. Abraham TJ and Ors., SLP (Crl) No. 8675/2022
Facts: The complaint alleged that significant sums of money were exchanged in Bengaluru related to a stalled Bangalore Development Authority (BDA) project. It claimed that a work order was issued to M/s. Ramalingam Construction Company Pvt. Ltd., owned by accused No. 5, Chandrakanth Ramalingum. Allegedly, Yediyurappa's son demanded ₹12.5 crores on behalf of his father. Further, it was alleged that accused No. 7, Dr. G.C. Prakash, received the same amount from accused No. 8, K. Ravi, promising to pass it to Yediyurappa through his son, Vijayendra. Additionally, it was alleged that Yediyurappa and co-accused engaged in corruption via shell companies, transferring ₹3,41,00,000 to these companies, which then funneled funds to accounts held by Yediyurappa's family.
Issue: Is prior sanction required under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (PCA) for a Magistrate to direct an investigation into cognizable offences involving a public servant under Section 156(3) of the CrPC?
Observation: The Supreme Court considered whether a direction under Section 156(3) of the CrPC necessitates prior sanction for prosecution under Section 17A of the PCA. The Court ruled that an order for investigation under Section 156(3) cannot be issued without valid sanction under Section 19(1) of the PCA.
