The jurisdiction of the Special Judge to try offences under the Indian Penal Code and the Prevention of Corruption Act, the interpretation of the phrase 'under color of office' in section 161(1) of the Bombay Police Act, 1951, the scope and purpose of the proviso to section 161(1) of the Bombay Police Act, and the requirement of specific sanction under section 6(1) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, for the prosecution of public servants for certain offences.

Headnote:
CRIMINAL LAW - Special Judge - Jurisdiction - Sanction - Limitation - Bombay Police Act, 1951 - Section 161(1) - Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Sections 6, 197, 218, 219, 220, 221, 222, 223, 233, 235, 239, 240 - Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 - Section 5(1)(c), 5(1)(d), 5(2), 5(3-A), 6(1) - Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 120-B, 161, 162, 163, 164, 165, 165-A, 201, 218, 221, 409 - Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 134.
Fact of the Case:

The petitioners, public servants, were charged with various offences, including conspiracy, illegal raids, misappropriation of funds, and accepting illegal gratification. The Special Judge rejected their applications challenging the jurisdiction of the court and the limitation period for prosecution. The petitioners filed a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, seeking to quash the orders passed by the Special Judge.
Finding of the Court:

1. The Special Judge had jurisdiction to try the petitioners for all the offences charged, including those under the Indian Penal Code and the Prevention of Corruption Act, as the sanction granted by the State Government covered all the offences and the provisions of section 7(3) of the Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1952, were applicable. 2. The limitation period prescribed under section 161(1) of the Bombay Police Act, 1951, was not attracted in the present case as the acts complained of were not done under color or in excess of any duty or authority conferred on the petitioners. 3. The prosecution of petitioners 1 to 13 was not barred by limitation under the proviso to section 161(1) of the Bombay Police Act, as the sanction granted by the State Government extended the limitation period. 4. Petitioners 1 to 13 could not be charged for any of the offences punishable under section 6 of the Prevention of Corruption Act without specific sanction under section 6(1) of the Act. 5. The charges for offences under sections 161, 165-A of the Indian Penal Code and section 5(2) read with sections 5(1)(c) and (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, for which no specific sanction was given, were quashed.
Issues: 1. Whether the Special Judge had jurisdiction to try the petitioners for all the offences charged, including those under the Indian Penal Code and the Prevention of Corruption Act. 2. Whether the limitation period prescribed under section 161(1) of the Bombay Police Act, 1951, was attracted in the present case. 3. Whether the prosecution of petitioners 1 to 13 was barred by limitation under the proviso to section 161(1) of the Bombay Police Act. 4. Whether petitioners 1 to 13 could be charged for any of the offences punishable under section 6 of the Prevention of Corruption Act without specific sanction under section 6(1) of the Act.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The provisions of section 7(3) of the Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1952, allow the Special Judge to try any offence other than an offence specified in section 6 of the Act with which the accused may be charged at the same trial under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. 2. The phrase 'under color of office' used in section 161(1) of the Bombay Police Act, 1951, includes acts done under the cloak of duty, even though not by virtue of duty. 3. The proviso to section 161(1) of the Bombay Police Act, 1951, contemplates a separate sanction which is necessary to extend the limitation period stipulated by sub-section (1). 4. Section 6(1) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, requires specific sanction for the prosecution of public servants for certain offences, including those punishable under section 161 or section 164 or section 165 of the Indian Penal Code or under sub-section (2) or sub-section (3-A) of section 5 of the Prevention of Corruption Act.
Final Decision: The petition was partly allowed. The orders passed by the Special Judge on the applications challenging the jurisdiction of the court and the limitation period for prosecution were maintained. The order passed by the Special Judge on the application challenging the charges for offences for which no specific sanction was accorded was modified. The charges for offences under sections 161, 165-A of the Indian Penal Code and section 5(2) read with sections 5(1)(c) and (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, for which no specific sanction was given, were quashed and directed to be reframed as per the court's directions. The application for a certificate under Article 134 of the Constitution of India was rejected.

JUDGMENT - M.S. JAMDAR, J.:---The petitioners have filed this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing the orders passed by the Special Judge, Kolhapur on five applications filed by the petitioners for various reliefs in Special Case No. 1 of 1983.

2. Petitioner Nos 1 to 13 (Original Accused Nos. 1 and 4 to 15 in Special Case No. 1 of 1983) are public servants being members of the Police force. At the material time petitioner No. 1 was working as a Sub-divisional Police Officer at the city sub-divisional of Kolhapur city. Petitioner Nos. 3 to 8 who are Police constables were attached to the Laxmipuri Police Station at Kolhapur. Petitioner Nos. 9, 10 and 13 were attached to Police headquarters and petitioner Nos. 11 and 12 were working as wireless operators at the Police Control Room at Kolhapur and petitioner Nos. 14 and 15 (original accused Nos. 15 and 17) are panch witnesses who attested the panchanama; alleged to be made in respect of the raid carried out on Parvez Mitra Seva Mandal, a common gaming house, on the night between 8th and 9th December, 1981. The raid in question was ordered by petitioner No. 1 and was carried out by original accused Nos. 2 and 3, the Police Officers who were attached to the Laxmipuri Police Station at Kolhapur, at the material time.

3. It is the case of the prosecution that petitioners and original accused Nos. 2 and 3 entered into a criminal conspiracy during 1st December, 1981 and 2nd January, 1982 to do certain illegal acts by illegal means, by raiding Parvez Mitra Seva Mandal, a common gaming house on the night between 19th and 20th December, 1981 with the ulterior motive of mis-appropriating the amount found there and for demanding and accepting illegal gratification and to let out the persons taken in custody at the gambling den and to accept illegal gratification for releasing the arrested persons on bail and to lodge first information report incorrectly and to carry out gambling raid without panchas and no in accordance with law and to prepare statements of witnesses without questioning them and to manipulate changes in the log sheets of the Police Control Room and to destroy original pages of the log sheet of the mobile police van and to intentionally aid the persons found in the common gaming house to escape and to direct the station house officers, Laxmipuri Police Station to adjust entries in the station diary and to make false entries in the station diary and temporarily misappropriate the amounts shown to have been attached in the common gaming house. It is further the prosecution case that in pursuance of the said criminal conspiracy the petitioners did various acts amounting to offences punishable under sections 161, 165-A, 201, 218, 221 and 409 read with section 34 and section 109 I.P.C. and section 5(2) read with section 5(1)(c) and (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act.

4. Sanction to prosecute the petitioners and accused Nos. 2 and 3 was accorded by the Government of Maharashtra in exercise of the powers conferred by Clause (b) of sub-section (1) and sub-section (3) of section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, and section 6(1)(b) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. The first paragraph of the preamble of the sanction reads as follows :---

"Whereas it has been reported to the Government of Maharashtra that the following Police Officers and men (hereinafter referred to as the accused persons), whose names have been also specified in Column No. 2 of the schedule hereto (hereinafter refereed to as the said schedule) while posted at Kolhapur district in the posts mentioned against them during the month of December 1981 or thereabout committed offences as specified in Column No. 4 of the said schedule."

5. The schedule has four columns. In the first column serial number of the accused is mentioned. In the second column particulars of the accused persons, their names, designations and addresses ar

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1984 Supreme(Bom) 377

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAYR.A. Jahagirdar M.S. Jamdar, JJ.Mohan Mallu Rathod others.... Petitioners. VersusState of Maharashtra.... Respondent.Criminal Writ Petition No. 627 of 1984, decided on 21-12-1984.Advocates appeared :C.A. Phadkar, for petitioners.P.P. Hudalikar, P.P., for respondent.