Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2009 Supreme(SC) 1568

Supreme Court of India
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.V. RAVEENDRAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE B. SUDERSHAN REDDY
State through Central Bureau of Investigation
Versus
Parmeshwaran Subramani & Another
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1758 OF 2009 (Arising out of SLP(Crl.) No.1735 of 2007)
Decided on : 11-09-2009

Advocates appeared:
For the Appellant :H.P. Rawal, ASG, Subhash Kaushik, A.K. Sharma, P. Parmeswaran, Advocates.
For the Respondents:Krishnan Venugopal, Sr. Advocate, Santosh Kumar, Davesh Singh, Ms. Anu Gupta, Dharmendra Kumar Sinha, Siddhartha Singh, Uday V.S. Rathore, Advocates.

IMPORTANT POINT
Offence u/s 12, PC Act, 1988 is distinct, and therefore specifically excluded from purview of section 19. No sanction is required for taking cognizance u/s 12.

Headnote:(a) Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 – Section 12 – Punishment for abetting offence u/s 7 or 13 – Commission of offence u/s 7 and 13 as result of abetment immaterial – Offence of abatement is distinct – Section 19 omitting section 12 from its purview – No sanction required for taking cognizance u/s 12. (Para 13, 14)
       (b) Interpretation of statute – Sections 12 and 19, Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 – Courts below linking section 12 of Act 1988 to sections 7 and 11 – Opining that as sanction is required for taking cognizance u/s 7 and 11, and as section 12 punishes for abetment of offences u/s 7 and 11, sanction should be required for it also – Courts below reading something into a provision which is clear and unambiguous – Amounts to rewriting section 19 – Not permissible. (Para 14, 15, 18)
       (1992) Supp. (1) SCC 323; (1984) 2 SCC 500; (2005) 10 SCC 437 – Relied upon
       1993 Mah. L.J. 284 – Distinguished
       Facts of the case:
       The respondent No. 1, the then Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise, Panaji was alleged to purchase 48 ready built flats for Customs Department from the respective firms at an exorbitant price of Rs. 3,55,69,150/- thus causing huge loss of Rs. 1.04 crores to the department.
       Shri Ram Avtar Yadav, Inspector CBI/ ACB/ Goa was conducting the enquiry into said allegations.
       It is alleged that on 25.9.2002, the respondent no. 2, Inspector of Central Excise, Goa, met Shri Ram Avtar Yadav, Inspector and during the course of meeting he made a request on behalf of the respondent no. 1 to close the case and also conveyed that the respondent no. 1 wanted to meet him in connection with the said case and to offer some gratification.
       On the same day, the Inspector (Complainant) lodged a written complaint against both the respondents before Superintendent of Police, CBI/ACB/Goa. Accordingly, RC8(A) /20J2 /CBI /ACB/ Goa, was registered against both the respondents. Both the respondents met the complainant at a restaurant and offered him a bribe of Rs. 1 lakh. On 26.9.2002, the respondent no. 1 withdrew an amount of Rs. 50,000/-from his savings bank account and handed over the same to the respondent no. 2 to deliver the said amount as part of the bribe to the complainant.
       The respondent no. 2 was caught red handed while offering and delivering bribe on behalf of respondent no. 1 at the residence of the complainant. Thereafter charge sheet was filed in the court of learned Special Judge against both the respondents for the offences punishable under Section 120B read with Section 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
       The Special Judge having perused the chargesheet and material on record came to the conclusion that previous sanction as required under Section 19 of the Act was necessary to prosecute a Public Servant for the offence punishable under Section 12 of the Act and accordingly declined to take cognizance of the offence.
       The High Court dismissed the revision of the appellant and upheld the discharge of the respondents for want of sanction under Section 19 of the Act.
       Finding of the Court:
       View taken by courts below is not permissible.
       Result:
        Appeal allowed.

Judgment :

B. Sudershan Reddy, J.

Leave granted.

1.2. This appeal, which has come before us by special leave, is directed against the judgment of the High Court of Bombay at Goa dated 23.11.2006 in Criminal Revision Application No. 49 of 2006, by which the learned Single Judge affirmed the conclusion of the learned Special Judge, North Goa, Panaji that previous sanction was necessary to prosecute a Public Servant under Section 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

2.3. The brief factual matrixof the case is as under:

On source information the Central Bureau of Investigation, Goa registered a preliminary enquiry being PE 2(A)/2002/CBI/ACB against the respondent no. 1 and others. The respondent No. 1 was the then Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise, Panaji. It was alleged that respondent no. 1 along with others purchased 48 ready built flats for Customs Department from the respective firms at an exorbitant price of Rs. 3,55,69,150/- though the actual market value was much less than the price paid. It was further alleged that undue favour of respondent no. 1 caused huge loss of Rs. 1.04 crores to the department. Shri Ram Avtar Yadav, Inspector CBI/ ACB/ Goa was conducting the enquiry into said allegations.

4. The respondent No. 2 was the Inspector of Central Excise, Goa. It was alleged that on 24.9.2002, the respondent no. 2 made a request on telephone to Shri Ram Avtar Yadav, Inspector to meet him in connection with some personal work. On the next day i.e. 25.9.2002, the respondent no. 2 met Shri Ram Avtar Yadav, Inspector and during the course of meeting he made a request on behalf of the respondent no. 1 to close the case and also conveyed that the respondent no. 1 wanted to meet him in connection with the said case and to offer some gratification. On the same day, the Inspector (Complainant) lodged a written complaint against both the respondents before Superintendent of Police, CBI/ACB/Goa. Accordingly, RC8(A) /20J2 /CBI /ACB/ Goa, was registered against both the respondents. Both the respondents met the complainant at a restaurant and offered him a bribe of Rs. 1 lakh. On 26.9.2002, the respondent no. 1 withdrew an amount of Rs. 50,000/-from his savings bank account and handed over the same to the respondent no. 2 to deliver the said amount as part of the bribe to the complainant. A trap was laid in the presence of two independent witnesses. The respondent no. 2 was caught red handed while offering and delivering bribe on behalf of respondent no. 1 at the residence of the complainant. Thereafter on completion of the investigation charge sheet was filed in the court of learned Special Judge against both the respondents for the offences punishable under Section 120B read with Section 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act").

5. The learned Special Judge having perused the chargesheet and material on record came to the conclusion that previous sanction as required under Section 19 of the Act, was necessary to prosecute a Public Servant for the offence punishable under Section 12 of the Act and accordingly declined to take cognizance of the offence. Being aggrieved by the order of the learned Special Judge, the appellant filed the Criminal Revision Application No. 49 of 2006 before the High Court of Bombay at Goa. The High Court dismissed the revision of the appellant and upheld the discharge of the respondents for want of sanction under Section 19 of the Act.

Hence this appeal.

1.6. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.

2.7. The short question that arises for our consideration in this appeal is whether any previous sanction as such is necessary for taking cognizance of an offence punishable under Section 12 of the Act?

3.8. Shri H.P. Rawal, learned Additional Solicitor General appearing on behalf of the appellant submitted that the court is not precluded from taking cognizance of an offence punishable under Sectio

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2009 Supreme(SC) 1568

Supreme Court of India THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.V. RAVEENDRAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE B. SUDERSHAN REDDY State through Central Bureau of Investigation Versus Parmeshwaran Subramani & Another CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1758 OF 2009 (Arising out of SLP(Crl.) No.1735 of 2007) Decided on : 11-09-2009

IMPORTANT POINTOffence u/s 12, PC Act, 1988 is distinct, and therefore specifically excluded from purview of section 19. No sanction is required for taking cognizance u/s 12.

Cases Referred (3)

Supreme Court of India
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.V. RAVEENDRAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE B. SUDERSHAN REDDY
State through Central Bureau of Investigation
Versus
Parmeshwaran Subramani & Another
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1758 OF 2009 (Arising out of SLP(Crl.) No.1735 of 2007)
Decided on : 11-09-2009

IMPORTANT POINT
Offence u/s 12, PC Act, 1988 is distinct, and therefore specifically excluded from purview of section 19. No sanction is required for taking cognizance u/s 12.