Accordingly, the Court said the entire issue needs to be reconsidered and referred the following questions for a decision by a two-judge bench:
– When the Supreme Court has in Jayant referred to the proposition laid down in AnilKumar and laid down a dictum that an order directing investigation is not tantamount to taking cognizance, whether it is possible to construe sanction under Section 19 of the PC Act as a pre- requisite for passing a direction for investigation under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C overlooking that the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Jayant aligns with the ratio laid down by the Constitution Bench and Larger Benches of the Supreme Court.
– Whether the law laid down by the Division Bench of this Court in Muhammed that pending adjudication of the reference made by the Supreme Court in Manju Surana, this Court is bound to follow the law laid down by the Supreme Court in AnilKumar continues to be a binding law in the light of the subsequent judgment of the Supreme Court in Jayant wherein the Supreme Court has laid down the proposition that an embargo on taking cognizance imposed by the statute does not impede investigation.
– Whether the ratio laid down in Anil Kumar is applicable to cases, post amendment of the P.C Act (vide: Act 16 of 2018), when by inserting Section 17-A and Section 19 (1) (ii) to the P.C. Act, the legislature has expressly conveyed its otherwise implicit intent to treat the stage of the investigation as different from the stage of cognizance for the purpose of the P.C. Act.
– Whether the expression “cognizance” in Section 19 of the P.C Act is liable to be construed bearing in mind that the said expression derives its meaning from the context expressly referred therein, ie,”prosecution”.
Source: Barandbench
