ORDER

The State of Gujarat is in appeal against the judgments of the Gujarat High Court in these appeals. Whereas in Criminal Appeal No. 601/97, judgment in its entirety has been challenged as totally without jurisdiction, the Criminal Appeal No. 602/1997, however, is having a limited challenge and the main grievance pertains to certain directions. For convenience sake the Criminal Appeal No. 602/1997 is taken up first for hearing.

Mr. K.N. Rawal, the learned Additional Solicitor General of India contended that the directions contained at paragraph 26.1 at page 68-69 of the paperbook in particular the last few lines are not only unwarranted but wholly without jurisdiction. For convenience sake the same is set out hereinbelow :

"......In fact, after registering the offence, sanction must be obtained within one month or at the most within two months, and thereafter, the chargesheet should be filed within fifteen days. If round about three months if the chargesheet is not filed, Director General, Anti-Corruption Bureau should call for necessary explanation and take appropriate departmental action against the concerned Investigation Officer and also must request the concerned departmental head to grant sanction immediately. The concerned sanctioning authority from the date of the receipt of papers shall grant sanction within two months failing which he would be liable for the contempt proceedings of this Court in absence of reasonable explanation. It will also be a duty of the trial Court to see that if it come across any belated granting of sanction and thereafter filing of the chargesheet, appropriate observations are made against the concerned officials by forwarding a copy of his judgment and order at the highest to Secretary level. Incidentally, it may also be stated that some of the learned PPs in charge of Corruption case do not cite judgment of this Court and Apex Court in favour of the prosecution. This is too sad ! !......"

3. The learned Additional Solicitor General highlighting the initiation of contempt proceedings in the absence of reasonable explanation from the sanctioning authority in the event of there being a delay of two months, contended that judicial proceedings ought not to prompt the judicial officers to apprehend things and pass orders on apprehensions. It has further been contended that as a matter of fact adaptation of procedure as above would not only denegrate the Judiciary itself but the confidence reposed by the people to the Judiciary would be shaken and resultantly a total anarchy in the judicial system.

4. Incidentally, it may be noticed that use of temperate language and tolerance are the two basic factors in any judicial approach and it is in this perspective Mr. Rawal contended that direction as noticed above to the trial Court and use of strongest possible language as regards public prosecutors cannot but be said to be rather unfortunate. A generalized statement ought not to be made since restraint is the greatest virtue that one may expect from a Judge.

5. We do find some justification in Mr. Rawal s criticism of the judgment.

6. In this view of the matter, and since the portion indicated above is rather harsh, the same stands expunged from the judgment. Save as above, we do not wish to disturb the finding of the court in the judgment under appeal. We however record our appreciation at the gesture of the learned Addl. Solicitor General since he himself submitted that the rest of the order by reason of the subsequent event should not be disturbed in any way. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed though however the High Court s judgment shall stand modified to the extent indicated above.

7. Turning attention on to the Criminal Appeal No. 601/1997 unfortunately however, the judgment under appeal is more pathetically couched and we cannot possibly lend concurrence to use of such strong language by the High Court. Significantly, the Indian Administrative Service Officers