In the case of Manju Surana vs. Sunil Arora and Others, a question whether prior sanction for prosecution qua allegation of corruption in respect of a public servants is required before setting in motion even the investigative process under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973’ was put forth before a two judges Bench comprising of Justice Chelameswar and Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul .
Prashant Bhushan, the counsel on behalf of the petitioner, contended that the requirement of prior sanction for prosecution against the public servant would arise only when cognizance is taken, while no such sanction was required at the stage of setting into motion an investigation under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. He made this contention relying on the case of Anil Kumar v M.K. Aiyappa, (2013) 10 SCC 705 and L.Naryana Swamy v State of Karnataka, (2016) 9 SCC 598. He also drew a distinction between the investigation carried out at pre-cognizance stage, which would not face the requirement of a prior sanction qua a public servant, as against a post-cognizance proceeding which needs prior sanction.
It was held that taking cognizance under Section190(1)(a) of the Cr.P.C., a Magistrate must not only have applied his mind but must have done so for purposes of proceeding under Section 200 and the provisions following that Section. The application of mind only for ordering investigation under Section 156(3) or issuing a warrant for purposes of investigation could not be said to have taken cognizance of the offence.
Mr. Tushar Mehta, learned Additional Solicitor General submitted that application of mind was necessary to exercise power under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. and that credibility of information was to be weighed before ordering investigation relying on the judgment of Ramdev Food Products (P) Ltd. v. State of Gujarat, (2015) 6 SCC 439. It was, thus, submitted that allegation against a public servant under the Prevention of Corruption Act are technical in nature and would require a higher evaluation standard and thus the Magistrates ought to apply their mind before ordering investigation against public servant.
The Apex Court found a divergence of opinion, which would be settled by a larger Bench.

Read the judgment: http://www.supremecourtofindia.nic.in/supremecourt/2014/21590/21590_2014_Judgement_27-Mar-2018.pdf