SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1999 Supreme(SC) 572

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
G. T. Nanavati, S. N. Phukan
STATE OF J&K, APPELLANT
Versus
CHARAN DASS PURI, RESPONDENT.
Criminal Appeal No. 539 of 1999 (Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 2050 of 1998), decided on April 29, 1999.

In cases of a retired public servant alleged to have committed an offence punishable under the Prevention of Corruption Act, no previous sanction is required if the individual has ceased to be a public servant at the time the court is called upon to take cognizance of the offence.

Headnote:

Previous Sanction - Retired Public Servant - In cases of a retired public servant alleged to have committed an offence punishable under the Prevention of Corruption Act, no previous sanction is required if the individual has ceased to be a public servant at the time the court is called upon to take cognizance of the offence.

Fact of the Case:

The point for consideration was whether in the case of a retired public servant, previous sanction of the Government is required before the court can take cognizance of the offence under the J&K Public Servants Prevention of Corruption Act, 1975.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that in cases of a public servant who has ceased to be a public servant at the time the court is called upon to take cognizance of the offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act, no previous sanction is necessary.

Issues: The issue was whether previous sanction of the Government is required in the case of a retired public servant before the court can take cognizance of the offence under the J&K Public Servants Prevention of Corruption Act, 1975.

Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the interpretation of Section 6 of the J&K Public Servants Prevention of Corruption Act, 1975 and previous relevant judgments to establish that no previous sanction is required for a retired public servant under the Prevention of Corruption Act.

Final Decision: The appeal was allowed, the judgment and order passed by the High Court were set aside, and the trial court was directed to proceed further with the trial of the case.

ORDER

1. Leave granted.

2. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

3. The point that arises for consideration in this appeal is whether in case of a retired public servant, previous sanction of the Government is required before the court can take cognizance of the offence under the J&K Public Servants Prevention of Corruption Act, 1975. Section 6 of that Act reads as under :

"6. Previous sanction necessary for prosecution. - No court shall take cognizance of an offence punishable under Section 161 or Section 164 or Section 165 or Section 167-A of the State Ranbir Penal Code, Samvat 1989 or under sub-section (2) or sub-section (3) of Section 5 of this Act, alleged to have been committed by a public servant except with the previous sanction :

(a) in the case of a person who is employed in connection with the affairs of the State and is not removable from his office save by or with the sanction of the Government;

(b) in the case of any other person, of the authority competent to remove him from his office;


* * *"


4. This Court in Kalicharan Mahapatra v. State of Orissa ((1998) 6 SCC 411 : 1998 SCC (Cri) 1455) has held that if a public servant has ceased to be a public servant at the time the court is called upon to take cognizance of the offence, no previous sanction is necessary. This Court also referred to its previous decision in R. Balakrishna Pillai v. State of Kerala ((1996) 1 SCC 478 : 1996 SCC (Cri) 128) on which reliance has been placed by the High Court for taking the contrary view and has pointed out how that judgment can be of no relevance where the offence alleged is an offence punishable under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947. In para 13 of the judgment this Court has specifically dealt with this aspect. Thus, the law on this point is quite clear that in case of a public servant who is alleged to have committed an offence punishable under the Prevention of Corruption Act, no previous sanction would be required if by the time the court is called upon to take cognizance of that offence he has ceased to be a public servant. The High Court was wrong in taking the contrary view. This appeal is, therefore, allowed, judgment and order passed by the High Court are set aside and the trial court is directed to proceed further with the trial of the case.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top