Page No.# 1/8 GAHC030006862026 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Crl.Pet./27/2026 Sh. James Lalrinchhana S/o C. Thanbuaia (L) R/o Ramhlun South, Aizawl, Mizoram Landmark - Near Presbyterian Church Contact No. 9436156923 Pin - 796 012 VERSUS State of Mizoram and Anr. R/b the Public Prosecutor Gauhati HIgh Court, Aizawl Bench Office Address - MINECO, Khatla, Aizawl Landmark - Advocate General's Office Building Pin - 796 001 2:The Mizoram Lokayukt Advocate for the Petitioner : Mr B Lalramenga Advocate for the Respondent : P.P./Addl.PP, Mizoram for R1 B E F O R E HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH MAZUMDAR ORDER 17.09.2026 Heard Mr. B. Lalramenga, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. C. Lalfakzuala, learned Special Public Prosecutor for the Page No.# 2/8 respondent No. 2. 2. The present application has been filed under Section 528 of the BNSS, 2023, being aggrieving by the order dated 14.07.2026 passed by the Court of Special Judge, Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, Aizawl, Mizoram in SR(PCA) No. 4 of 2026. With the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the matter is taken up for disposal. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that pursuant to a complaint lodged before the Chairperson Mizoram, Lokayukta by the Secretary, Mizoram Pradesh Youth Congress Committee, an investigation had been taken up regarding allegations against the petitioner herein of resorting to corrupt practices. The investigation had culminated in Charge Sheet No. 3/2026 dated 20.07.2026. 4. By the Order dated 14.07.2026, it has been recorded that the Addl. Public Prosecutor representing the prosecution and the accused represented by their respective counsels were heard. On the issues as to whether, the prosecution sanction would have been necessary to initiate the proceedings against the petitioner herein. The learned Court also decided whether there were enough material, prima facie, to frame charges against both the accused for offences punishable under Section 120 B r/w Section 409 of the IPC and 132 r/w Section Page No.# 3/8 131 A and 131 B of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that Order dated 14.07.2026 would reveal that a specific plea regarding the requirement of a prosecution sanction to enable the Court to take cognizance against the accused No. 2 in SRPC No. 4/2026 was raised and, in the absence of the same, the learned Trail Court could not have proceeded to take cognizance against the accused No. 2. The order dated 14.07.2026 would also reveals that the argument of the learned counsel for the accused No. 2 and the Addl. Public Prosecutor on the aforesaid submission had been heard. He submits that the order does not reveal the finding of the learned Trial Court on the issue of the prosecution sanction having been addressed to in any manner and it does not reflected any reasons for deciding to frame charges to against both the accused persons without deciding the question of the requirement of the prosecution sanction against the accused No. 2. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that discharge petition is already pending before the learned Trial Court which has been filed with under Section 262 r/w Section 250 of the BNSS 2023. He has submitted that without deciding the application seeking discharge of the accused No. 2, the learned Trial Court had proceeded to frame a prima facie opinion that sufficient ground existed for framing of the changes against both the accused Page No.# 4/8 person. 7. The learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn our attention to the Order dated 24.08.2026 passed in Criminal Petition 23/2026, wherein, on similar grounds and a Discharge Petition was pending, this Court had disposed of the Criminal Petition with a direction to the learned Trial Court to decide that Discharge Certificate filed by the petitioner on merits after hearing the parties and without regard to the impugned order passed by it earlier, taking a prima facie view that enough materials were present for framing of charges. 8. He has also drawn attention of this Court to the Order dated 24.08.2026 passed in Crl. Pet. No. 22/2026, where, taking into account that no charges had been framed till the date of the disposal of the Criminal Petition, and that no final decision as regard the provision under which the charge is to be framed had been taken by the learned Trial Court, the Trial Court was required to decide the discharge application filed by the petitioner on merits without regard to the earlier Order recording a prima facie satisfaction. 9. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the grievance in the present Criminal Petition would stand redressed, in the event, the learned Trail Court is required initially to decide the requirement or otherwise of the prosecution sanction to proceed with the Trial and further to decide the prayer for discharge made by the petitioner who, is the accused No. 2 before the learned Trial Court, before framing the charges, however, without reference to Page No.# 5/8 the earlier prima facie opinion regarding existence of sufficient grounds for framing of charges. He has accordingly prayed that the matter may be remanded back to the learned Trial Court to decide the aforesaid issues before proceeding to frame charges. The learned Special Public Prosecutor has submitted that, although from the Order dated 14.07.2026, no specific finding regarding the requirement of the prosecution sanction has been recorded, the very fact the learned Trial Court had proceeded to consider the existence of sufficient grounds for framing of charges is evidence enough that the learned Trial Court had framed a mind that the prosecution sanction, in a case like the present one, would not be necessary. 10. However, he has fairly submitted that in the absence of the reason given by the Trail Court, the aforesaid order may require a re-visit to note down the specific satisfaction of the learned Trail Court regarding the requirement or otherwise of the prosecution sanction and reasons, if necessary, in brief, if not explanatory, may have to be recorded for coming to such conclusion. 11. As regards the issue raised regarding the disposal of the application for discharge filed by the petitioner, the learned Special Public Prosecutor has submitted that that the aforesaid application is to be decided prior to the Page No.# 6/8 framing of charges, as has already been directed by this Court in the other two cases cited by the petitioner, and the prosecution would have no objection if the discharge application is decided prior to framing of charges, of course after deciding the requirement of prosecution sanction for proceeding with the Trail. 12. The learned Special Pubic Prosecutor has also drawn attention of this Court to the provisions of Section 5 of the Prevention of Corruption Act of 1988 which empowers the Special Judge to take cognizance of the offences without the accused being committed to him for the Trial and in trying the accused persons in such circumstances, the learned Court was required to follow the procedure prescribed by the Cr.PC 1973, for Trial of warrant cases by the Magistrate. The learned Special Public Prosecutor has submitted that in such cases, the provision for the “opening of the prosecution” is not available in the Cr.PC and therefore, the Trial Court could have well proceeded without the requirement of an opening of the case by the prosecution. 13. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and I have also gone through the judgments placed before me. There is no quarrel at the bar, and, it is also from evident that the learned Trial Court did not record its satisfaction regarding the requirement of a prosecution sanction or otherwise in the Order dated 14.07.2026. 14. It is trite that orders passed by judicial authorities are required to have reasons recorded, if necessary briefly, without elaborate Page No.# 7/8 explanations, to divulge the manner in which a certain decisions has been arrived at. 15. In such view of the matter, I am of the considered opinion that the Order dated 14.07.2026 would require a re-consideration by the learned Court which had heard the issues. 16. With regard to the applications filed for discharge by the present petitioner, the same would also be required to be decided prior to the learned Trial Court proceeding with the Trial. 17. In view of the circumstances of the present case, I am of the considered opinion that the Order dated 14.07.2026, requires interference and the same is accordingly interfered with. The matter is remanded back to the learned Trial Court to take on record the objections raised by the accused No. 2 in the Trial/Petitioner in the present petition, regarding the requirement or otherwise of a prosecution sanction to proceed against him, before the application for discharge is taken up by the learned Trial Court for consideration. In the event the learned Trail Court comes to a finding that the Prosecution Sanction would not be necessary, the discharge application of the petitioner would thereafter be taken up without reference to the prima facie opinion already recorded in the Order dated 14.07.2026 and the learned Trial Court would take a fresh decision Page No.# 8/8 regarding the prayer for discharge of the petitioner/accused No. 2. 18. The petitioner would also be liberty to raise the issue of the requirement of prosecution sanction, together at the time of hearing the application for discharge, since as submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the same being a question of law, it can be raised at any stage of the proceedings. The learned Trial Court would be at liberty to dispose of the application for discharge by the petitioner by also, taking into account the objections raised by the petitioner regarding the prosecution sanction. 19. Accordingly, Criminal Petition is disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant