IMPORTANT POINTS
Section 19 of the P.C. Act interpreted.
Correctness of Antulay’s case upheld.

Headnote:(a) Prevention of Corruption Act – Section 19 – Where the public servant had abused the office which he held in the check period but had ceased to hold “that office” or was holding a different office then sanction would not be necessary. (Para 9)
        (2007) 1 SCC 1; (1984) 2 SCC 183; (2007) 1 SCC 45; (2007) 1 SCC 59; (1995) 2 SCC 437 – Referred
        (b) Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Section 21 – Members of Legislative Assembly and the Members of Parliament are public servants. (Para 17)
        (1998) 4 SCC 626 – Relied upon
        (c) Prevention of Corruption Act – Section 19 – Sanction – Where the public servant had abused the office which he held in the check period but had ceased to hold “that office” or was holding a different office on the date of taking cognizance, then a sanction would not be necessary – Decision in Antulay’s case [(1984) 2 SCC 183] not obiter dictum. (Paras 20 and 23)
        (2007) 1 SCC 45; (2007) 1 SCC 59; (1995) 2 SCC 437; (2007) 1 SCC 1; AIR 1958 SC 107 – Relied upon
        (2000) 8 SCC 500; (1957) 1 SCR 650; (2002) 4 SCC 638; (2006) 5 SCC 167; (2003) 7 SCC 197; AIR 1971 SC 530; AIR 1968 SC 647; (1976) 2 SCC 521; (1991) 3 SCC 655; (1973) 2 AWR 263; AIR 1969 Goa 94 – Distinguished
        (d) Interpretation of Statutes – Maxim stare decisis et non quieta movere – Decision in Antulay’s case has withstood the test of times for over 25 years – it would be better to stand by that decision and not to disturb what is settled (Para 24)
        (2011) 2 SCC 132; 1974 (1) WLR 176; (1981) 2 SCC 362; (1976) 4 SCC 124; (1980) 1 SCC 223; (1989) 2 SCC 754; (1990) 4 SCC 207; (1990) 4 SCC 453; (1993) 3 SCC 114 – Relied upon
        (e) Interpretation of statutes – Doctrine of per incuriam – Antulay’s case not per incuriam section 6(2) of the old P.C. Act (pari materia section 19(2) of new Act) in as much as it analysed and interpreted the provision as a whole – The provision does not contemplate an eventuality where a public servant may be holding office in a different capacity from the one that he was holding when the offence is alleged to have been committed at the time when cognizance is taken – Once it was held that there was no necessity of sanction at all, there would be no question of there being any doubt arising about the sanctioning authority – The provision simply contemplates a situation where there is a genuine doubt as to whether sanctioning authority should be the Central Government or the State Government or any authority competent to remove the public servant
        (1990) 3 SCC 682; (2004) 7 SCC 558 – Distinguished
        (f) Prevention of Corruption Act – Sections 19(1) and (2) – To base the interpretation of Section 19(1) of the Act on the basis of Section 19(2) would be irrational –Once it is held that the public servant being prosecuted is holding a different capacity than the one which he is alleged to have abused, there is no question of going to Section 19(2) at all because there will be no question of any doubt as to the authority competent to grant sanction. (Para 27)
        (g) Prevention of Corruption Act – Section 19(2) – There is distinct difference between ‘office’ and ‘post’. (Para 28)
        (h) Prevention of Corruption Act – Section 19(1) – Sub-Section (1) of Section 19 has to be read with in tune with and in light of sub-Sections (a), (b) and (c) thereof – Therefore the contention of literal interpretation or the theory of litera Regis rejected. (Para 29)
        4 MIA 179; 1948 (2) All ER 995; 1967 (2) All ER 576 – Relied upon
        (i) Prevention of Corruption Act – Section 19(1) – Terms ‘public servant’ and ‘a person’ - Interpretation – Both the terms have different meanings but should be interpreted in the manner suggested. (Para 30)
        (j) Prevention of Corruption Act – Section 19(2) – The relevant time is the date on which the cognizance is taken – If on that date, the appellant is not a public servant, there will be no question of any sanction. (Para 32)
        AIR 1958 SC 107 – Relied upon
       Facts of the case:
        1. Whether absence of sanction u/s 19 of the P.C. Act vitiates the trial already in progress is the question raised in these appeals.
        2. In this connection, correctness of the decision in A.R. Antulay’s case has been questioned.
       Finding of the Court:
        There is no infirmity in the impugned judgment.
       Result : Appeals dismissed.

JUDGMENT

V.S. Sirpurkar, J. —

1. This judgment will dispose of two Special Leave Petitions, they being SLP (Crl.) No. 7384 of 2010 and SLP (Crl.) No. 7428 of 2010. While Abhay Singh Chautala is the petitioner in the first Special Leave Petition, the second one has been filed by Shri Ajay Singh Chautala. The question involved is identical in both the SLPs and hence they are being disposed of by a common judgment.

2. Leave granted in both the Special Leave Petitions.

3. Whether the sanction under Section 19 of The Prevention of Corruption Act (hereinafter called “the Act” for short) was necessary against both the appellants and, therefore, whether the trial which is in progress against both of them, a valid trial, is common question. This question was raised before the Special Judge, CBI before whom the appellants are being tried for the offences under Sections 13(1) (e) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act read with Section 109 of Indian Penal Code in separate trials.

4. Separate charge sheets were filed against both the appellants for the aforementioned offences by the CBI. It was alleged that both the accused while working as the Members of Legislative Assembly had accumulated wealth disproportionate to their known sources of income. The charges were filed on the basis of the investigations conducted by the CBI. This was necessitated on account of this Court’s order in Writ Petition (Crl.) No.93 of 2003 directing the CBI to investigate the JBT Teachers Recruitment Scam. The offences were registered on 24.5.2004. The CBI conducted searches and seized incriminating documents which revealed that Shri Om Prakash Chautala and his family had acquired movable and immovable properties valued at Rs.1,467 crores. On this basis a Notification came to be issued on 22.2.2006 under Sections 5 and 6 of the DSPE Act with the consent of the Government of Haryana extending powers and jurisdiction under the DSPE Act to the State of Haryana for investigation of allegations regarding accumulation of disproportionate assets by Shri Om Prakash Chautala and his family members under the Prevention of Corruption Act. A regular First Information Report then came to be registered against Shri Om Prakash Chautala who is the father of both the appellants. It is found that in the check period of 7.6.2000 to 8.3.2005, appellant Abhay Singh Chautala had amassed wealth worth Rs.1,19,69,82,619/- which was 522.79 % of appellant Abhay Singh Chautala’s known sources of income. During the check period, Shri Abhay Singh Chautala was the Member of the Legislative Assembly Haryana, Rori Constituency. Similarly, in case of Ajay Singh Chautala, his check period was taken as 24.5.1993 to 31.5.2006 during which he held the following offices:-

1. 2.3.90 to 15.12.92 MLA Vidhan Sabha, Rajasthan

2. 28.12.93 to 31.11.98 MLA Vidhan Sabha, Rajasthan

3. 10.10.99 to 6.2.2004 Member of Parliament, Lok Sabha from Bhiwani Constituency

4. 2.8.2004 to 03.11.09 Member of Parliament, Rajya Sabha

He was later on elected as MLA from Dabwali constituency, Haryana in November, 2009. It was found that he had accumulated wealth worth Rs.27,74,74,260/- which was 339.26 % of his known sources of income. It was on this basis that the charge sheet came to be filed.

5. Admittedly, there is no sanction to prosecute under Section 19 of the Act against both the appellants.

6. An objection regarding the absence of sanction was raised before the Special Judge, who in the common order dated 2.2.2010, held that the allegations in the charge sheet did not contain the allegation that the appellants had abused their current office as member of Legislative Assembly and, therefore, no sanction was necessary.

7. This order was challenged by way of a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. before the High Court. The High Court dismissed the said petition by the order dated 8.7.2010.

8. The learned Senior Counsel Shri Mukul Rohtagi as well as Shri U.U. Lalit arguing for the appellants, urged that on the day whe

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2011 Supreme(SC) 589

IMPORTANT POINTS Section 19 of the P.C. Act interpreted. Correctness of Antulay’s case upheld.

Cases Referred (24)

IMPORTANT POINTS
Section 19 of the P.C. Act interpreted.
Correctness of Antulay’s case upheld.