Back
1996(8) Supreme 800
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
A.S. Anand and S.B. Majmudar, JJ.
State of Madhya Pradesh -Appellant
versus
Dr. Krishna Chandra Saksena -Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 1800 of 1996
(Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 670 of 1996)
Decided on 11-10-1996
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellant : K.N. Shukla, Sr. Advocate, B.S. Banthia and Uma Nath Singh, Advocates.
For the Respondent : R.K. Jain, Sr. Advocate, Sushil Kumar Jain, A.P. Dhamija and K.K. Gogna, Advocates.
(ii) Prevention of Corruption Act -Section 6-Criminal proceedings quashed by High Court in exercise of its jurisdiction u/s 482 Cr.P.C.-Appeal-It was a trap case wherein respondent was alleged to have taken a bribe of Rs. 2500/- for giving a favourable treatment-Validity of sanction could be circumstance for exercise of powers u/s 482 Cr.P.C.-Sanction order prima facie could not be said patently illegal-At the stage of granting sanction accused was not required to be heard-Prosecution could not have been quashed on supposition that documents which could have tilted the balance in favour of accused if it were considered were not considered-Respondent was promoted or he retired during pendency of proceedings before High Court were not relevant-High Court patently erred in law in quashing the proceedings. (Paras 9 & 10)
Certainly. Based on the provided legal document, the key points are as follows:
The power to quash criminal proceedings should be exercised sparingly and only in exceptional, rare cases, emphasizing caution and circumspection (!) .
At the stage of granting sanction under the Prevention of Corruption Act, the accused does not need to be heard, and the validity of the sanction primarily depends on whether the sanctioning authority considered all relevant evidence and documents (!) (!) .
The sanction order, if prima facie valid, should not be deemed invalid solely because some relevant documents or affidavits were not considered or were lost during proceedings. Such issues are better examined during trial rather than at the initial stage of quashing proceedings (!) (!) .
The mere promotion or retirement of the accused during the pendency of proceedings does not impact the validity of the prosecution or the decision to proceed with the trial, as the assessment is based on the evidence available at the investigation stage (!) .
The criteria for judicial interference to quash criminal proceedings include circumstances where the allegations do not constitute an offence, do not disclose a cognizable offence, are absurd or improbable, are barred by law, or are instituted with mala fide intent (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) .
In cases involving trap operations and allegations of bribery, the validity of the sanction becomes particularly significant. If the sanction is found to be valid upon prima facie examination, the proceedings should not be quashed at the initial stage (!) (!) .
The assessment of whether all relevant evidence was considered by the sanctioning authority is best suited for the trial stage, where the authority may be examined as a witness, rather than at the stage of initial proceedings or quashing (!) .
The absence or untraceability of the complainant at trial does not justify quashing proceedings if sufficient material was collected during investigation to implicate the accused and to proceed further (!) .
The order of the court to quash proceedings was found to be patently erroneous in law, and the proceedings were restored to allow the case to be tried in accordance with law (!) .
Overall, the judgment emphasizes that criminal proceedings, especially under anti-corruption statutes involving trap cases, should only be quashed in truly exceptional circumstances, and the validity of the sanction and the sufficiency of evidence at the investigation stage are critical considerations (!) (!) .
JUDGMENT
S.B. Majmudar, J.-Leave granted.
2. We have heard learned advocates of parties on merits with their consent. This appeal is, therefore, being finally disposed of by this judgment. The appellant is the State of Madhya Pradesh. Respondent was sought to be prosecuted under Section 6 of the Prevention of Corruption Act on the basis of a trap case. A learned Single Judge of the High Court A.S. Tripathi, J. by the impugned judgment quashed the criminal proceedings against the respondent in a petition filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure (for short Cr.P.C. ) and that is how the State is in appeal against the said judgment.
3. A few relevant facts may be noted at the outset. Respondent was a Medical Officer in the service of the appellant-State. He was posted at the relevant time as District Project Officer, Danida in Madhya Pradesh. One Sunil Jain, a representative of Kankur Laboratories, Ahmedabad made a complaint against him of demand of bribe on 1st January 1987 to the Vigilance Branch of Lok Aayukt. On his complaint a trap was laid on 2nd January 1987 and the respondent was trapped and arrested. After completion of investigation sanction for prosecution of the respondent was granted by the State Government on 27th July 1989. Before the challan could be filed on the basis of the aforesaid case registered as Crime Case No. 4 of 1987 at Vigilance Branch of Lok Aayukt, Gwalior, respondent preferred a petition under Section 482, Cr.P.C. at the Gwalior Bench of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh challenging this sanction order on three grounds - (i) the grant of sanction by the Department of Law was without the authority of law; (ii) the prosecution sanction was given against principles of natural justice having been granted without hearing the respondent; and (iii) the grant of sanction amounted to abuse of the process of the court. Because of the stay order granted by the High Court on 4th August 1989 in those proceedings the challan could not be filed before the competent court. In the meantime the record of the case was lost in the High Court. Proceedings dragged on for a couple of years on the file of the High Court. During this period the respondent got promoted to the post of Chief Medical Officer and was further promoted as Joint Director of Gwalior and Raipur and then he retired on attaining superannuation in June, 1993.
4. In the criminal proceedings pending in the High Court the record was reconstructed by an order of the Chief Justice dated 13th July 1993.
5. After the record was reconstructed Miscellaneous Criminal Case No. 948 of 1989 was heard by the learned Singh Judge of the High Court who allowed the petition filed by the respondent by his impugned order dated 17th November, 1995 and quashed the prosecution. As noted earlier the said order of the learned Single Judge is on the anvil of scrutiny in the present proceedings.
6. Shri Shukla, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant-State submitted that the learned Single Judge ought not to have quashed the criminal proceedings when after investigation the case was ready for being filed in the court in the light of the sanction granted by the competent authority. That the High Court had patently erred in bypassing the trap case wherein the respondent was found to have been caught red-handed while accepting bribe of Rs. 2,500 from the complainant. That such proceedings could not be nipped in the bud. That if ultimately the respondent was found not to have accepted the bribe he would be acquitted but in the light of the evidence on record at the stage of investigation the prosecuting agency had clearly made out a case for prosecuting the respondent who was required to face the trial. It was further contended that the High Court did commit a patent error in taking the view that the sanction was invalid as all relevant aspects were not considered by the sanctioning authority. That even assuming that some aspects were not considered by the sanctio
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
