State Of Rajasthan vs Tarachand Jain

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

1973 Supreme(SC) 190

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
H.R. KHANNA AND I.D. DUA, JJ.
The State of Rajasthan, Appellant
Versus
Tarachand Jain, Respondent.
Criminal Appeal No. 24 of 1970, D/- 1-5-1973.

Headnote:
Indian Penal Code,1860 – Section 161,148,323,324 and 325 - Prevention of Corruption Act – Section 5(2), 5(1)(d)(2), 5(1)(a), 6 and 6(1)(b) - Currency notes – Bribe - Respondent was a member of Rajasthan Administrative Service and was posted at material time as Sub-Divisional Magistrate - It is alleged that respondent accepted illegal gratification from various parties to cases which were pending before him on pretext of showing undue favour to them - One was an accused in a passport case pending before respondent - One made a complaint to Deputy Superintendent of Police, Anti-Corruption Department, that the respondent had made a demand of bribe from him - A trap was accordingly laid during course of which respondent was stated to have accepted an amount in marked currency notes as bribe - Those currency notes were thereafter recovered from possession of respondent - During the course of investigation, a further sum which was lying concealed in the respondent s house was also recovered - Whether he had applied his mind before being satisfied to need of sanction had not been agitated before and determined by Special Judge – Held, witness was working as Office Superintendent, Appointments Department at relevant time and as such, would be presumably familiar with signature of Chief Minister in the ordinary course of business - Learned Judges of High Court while holding that there was no material to prove that sanction had been accorded by Chief Minister made no reference to the statement that Chief Minister had signed sanction - In court opinion, judgment of High Court in this respect is vitiated by its omission to take into account a material piece of evidence - Evidence shows that formal sanction P-34 filed in the Court bears signature of learned counsel Special Secretary to the Government - Fact that Chief Minister signed sanction for the prosecution on file and not formal sanction produced in Court makes no material difference - It is, in court opinion, proved on record that sanction for prosecution of the accused had been accorded by competent authority after it had duly applied its mind to facts of case - Court accept appeal, set aside judgment of High Court and remand case to it for disposal of appeal on merits – Court are sure that as the matter is very old, High Court would take early steps to dispose of appeal - Appeal allowed.

Judgement Key Points

Based on the provided legal document, here are the key points regarding the case of State of Rajasthan vs. Tarachand Jain:

Case Details and Background: The case is a Criminal Appeal No. 24 of 1970 filed by the State of Rajasthan against Tarachand Jain, a Sub-Divisional Magistrate in Rajasthan, who was convicted by a Special Judge for accepting bribes under Section 161 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act (!) (!) . The High Court had set aside the conviction, declaring the trial null and void due to the alleged lack of valid sanction for prosecution (!) (!) .
Allegations and Evidence: The respondent was alleged to have accepted illegal gratification (Rs. 500 in marked currency notes) from an accused in a pending passport case and other sums concealed in his house (!) (!) (!) (!) . A trap was laid, and the bribe was recovered (!) (!) .
Sanction Dispute: The core legal issue was the validity of the sanction for prosecution. The Special Judge initially held the sanction invalid because it was issued by the Chief Minister, whereas he believed only the Governor could sanction the prosecution of a state officer (!) (!) (!) . The High Court, in a Division Bench judgment dated October 5, 1962, reversed this, ruling that the Chief Minister was competent to accord sanction without prior reference to the Governor (!) (!) .
Binding Precedent: The Supreme Court held that the Division Bench judgment of the High Court dated October 5, 1962, was binding on subsequent proceedings in the same criminal matter, preventing the High Court from re-litigating the issue of the Chief Minister's authority to grant sanction (!) (!) (!) .
Evidence of Application of Mind: Although the prosecution failed to prove on the face of the sanction order that the Chief Minister applied his mind to the facts, the Supreme Court found that the witness Umraomal, an Office Superintendent, stated in cross-examination that the Chief Minister had signed the sanction (!) (!) . The Court ruled that this statement was material evidence that the High Court had overlooked, satisfying the requirement that the sanctioning authority applied its mind (!) .
Burden of Proof: The burden rests on the prosecution to prove that the requisite sanction was obtained, including proof that the sanctioning authority applied its mind to the specific facts of the case (!) . While it is desirable for facts to appear on the face of the sanction, extraneous evidence can suffice if facts are not explicitly stated (!) (!) .
Final Ruling: The Supreme Court accepted the appeal, set aside the High Court's judgment, and remanded the case to the High Court for disposal on merits, noting that the matter was very old and expected the High Court to dispose of it early (!) (!) .

Judgment

KHANNA, J.: - Tarachand Jain respondent was convicted by Special Judge Balotra for an offence under Section 161 Indian Penal Code and vies sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000, or in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a further period of six months. On appeal the Rajasthan High Court set aside the conviction of the respondent on the ground that no valid sanction for his prosecution had been proved. All the proceedings against the respondent were quashed and the whole trial was held to be null and void for want of valid sanction. It was, however, made clear that the order of the High Court would not bar a subsequent trial of the respondent on the basis of a valid and prior sanction if the State was so advised to take that course. The present appeal has been filed in this Court by the State of Rajasthan on certificate of fitness granted by the High Court against its above judgment.

2. The respondent was a member of Rajasthan Administrative Service and was posted at the material time as Sub-Divisional Magistrate Barmer. It is alleged that between November 1959 and March 1960 the respondent accepted illegal gratification from various parties to the cases which were pending before him on the pretext of showing undue favour to them. One Hazi Ali Mohammed was an accused in a passport case pending before the respondent. Hazi Ali Mohammed made a complaint to the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Anti Corruption Department, Jodhpur on March 30, 1960 that the respondent had made a demand of bribe from him. A trap was accordingly laid during the course of which the respondent was stated to have accepted an amount of Rs. 500 in marked currency notes as bribe. Those currency notes were thereafter recovered from the possession of the respondent. During the course of investigation, a further sum of Rs. 11,450 which was lying concealed in the respondent s house was also recovered. The respondent had a bank balance of Rs. 5,534. 68 and he used to deposit a major part of his salary every month in the bank. The respondent was put up for trial on the above allegations for offences under Section 161 Indian Penal Code and Section 5 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act after sanction for his prosecution had been obtained. The material part of the sanction which was subsequently exhibited as P. 34 was as under:

GOVERNMENT OF RAJASTHAN

Appointments (A-III) Department

ORDER

No. F. 19(33) Apptts. (A)/60/Group III Jaipur, the 6th October, 1960.

Whereas it has been brought to the notice of the Governor of Rajasthan that Shri Tara Chand Jain, RAS S/o Shri Kesar Lal Jain resident of Panch Batti Baxhi Bhawan, Jaipur City, and posted at Barmer as Sub-Divisional Magistrate has accepted or obtained Rs. 500/- for himself from Shri Hazi Ali Mohammed S/o Shri Mari Musalman resident of Village Siyar District Barmer accused in case No. 82 of 1959 and No. 462 of 1969 State v. Shri Hazi Ali Mohammed under Sec. 3/6 Indian Passport Rules and State v. Hazi Ali Mohammed under Section 13/11 Rajasthan Religious Buildings and Places Act respectively pending in his court on 30-3-60 at his residence at Barmer as gratification other than legal remuneration as a motive or reward for showing favour to him in the exercise of his official functions by extending a proviso to decide the cases in his favour or by corrupt and illegal means or by otherwise abusing his position as a public servant has obtained for himself pecuniary advantage in the form of G. C. notes of Rs. 500/- in discharge of his duty and which gratification of Rs. 500/- was also recovered from his possession by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Anti Corruption Shri Nand Singh in the presence of Motbir witnesses, complainants and Police party, and which acts of said Sub Divisional Magistrate are punishable under Section 161 I.P.C. and 5 (1) (d) (2) of P.C. Act, 1947.

And whereas it has also been brought to the notice of Governor of Rajasth

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1973 Supreme(SC) 190

SUPREME COURT OF INDIAH.R. KHANNA AND I.D. DUA, JJ.The State of Rajasthan, Appellant VersusTarachand Jain, Respondent.Criminal Appeal No. 24 of 1970, D/- 1-5-1973.

Cases Referred (3)

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
H.R. KHANNA AND I.D. DUA, JJ.
The State of Rajasthan, Appellant
Versus
Tarachand Jain, Respondent.
Criminal Appeal No. 24 of 1970, D/- 1-5-1973.