The main legal point established in the judgment is that the delegation of powers and the execution of deeds by a delegatee can impact the liability of the delegator, and the refusal of prosecution sanction by relevant authorities can influence the court's decision.

Judgment

Sudhansu Jyoti Mukhopadhaya, J.

1. This appeal has been preferred by the Appellant against the order dated 13.7.2011 passed by the Principal Bench of High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur, in Criminal Revision No. 1821 of 2009. By the impugned order, the High Court allowed the criminal revision preferred by the investigating agency-State and set-aside the order dated 30.3.2007 passed by the Special Judge (Prevention of Corruption Act), Ratlam (hereinafter to be referred to as "Special Judge").

2. The Appellant Vinod Chandra Semwal is a member of the Indian Administrative Service of Madhya Pradesh cadre. Since 4.7.1991, he was posted as Collector, Ratlam. On 21.12.1992, in exercise of the power conferred Under Section 31 of the Madhya Pradesh Town Improvement Trusts Act, 1961 (for short "the Act"), the State Government appointed him as Chairman of the Town Improvement Trust, Ratlam (for short "the Trust"), a statutory body constituted Under Section 4 of the Act. The allegation against the Appellant is that while holding the post of the Chairman of the Trust, he abused his position as a public servant and transferred 30,000 square feet of government land to an ineligible and unauthorised person Vinod Bhai Parekh without any consideration and thereby caused loss of Rs. 1,34,33,381/- to State exchequer. The allegation was made after eight years of the alleged incident. On receipt of the complaint, Shri Deepak Tiwari, Lokayukta, Bhopal conducted a preliminary inquiry and found prima face case of commission of offences punishable Under Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short "P.C. Act") and Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code (Indian Penal Code). A case as Crime No. 57/2001 was registered by Special Police Establishment, Lokayukta. Despite repeated requests by the prosecution, sanction Under Section 19 of the P.C. Act to prosecute the Appellant Under Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the P.C. Act was not granted and by order dated 23.1.2007, sanction Under Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to prosecute the Appellant Under Section 120BIndian Penal Code was refused by the Madhya Pradesh Government. It is informed that the Central Government even refused to grant sanction to prosecute the Appellant. However, on 24.1.2007, the prosecution filed charge-sheet against the Appellant and co-accused Vinod Bhai Under Section 120Bof the Indian Penal Code and Under Sections 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of the P.C. Act without any sanction.

3. The Special Judge in Special Case No. 1 of 2007, vide order dated 30.3.2007, declined to take cognizance against the Appellant of the offences punishable Under Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the P.C. Act for want of sanction of prosecution Under Section 19 of the P.C. Act and refusal of sanction Under Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for prosecution Under Section 120B Indian Penal Code.

4. On the order being challenged by the prosecution, the Division Bench, by impugned order, referred the case of Prakash Singh Badal and Anr. v. State of Punjab and Ors., (2007) 1 SCC 1 and held that the same ratio was applicable as the Appellant had not executed the exchange deed in the capacity of Collector but in the capacity of Chairman, Town Improvement Trust, Ratlam.

5. It was contended on behalf of the Appellant that as the Appellant was posted as Collector of Ratlam on 4.7.1991, he was ex-officio Chairman of the Town Improvement Trust, Ratlam, a statutory body under the Act. In that view of the matter, the sanction was mandatory Under Section 19 of the P.C. Act for prosecution of the Appellant for the offences punishable Under Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the P.C. Act and sanction Under Section 197Code of Criminal Procedure was required for prosecuting the Appellant Under Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code.

6. During the course of arguments, learned senior Counsel for the Appellant, referring to