Back
High Court Of Delhi
NATIONAL CAPITAL TERRITORY OF DELHI - Appellant
Versus
BHUPINDER SINGH CHAUDHRY - Respondent
CRIMINAL APPEAL 150 of 1997
Decided On : 04/28/1997
Held: The main ground of attack was that the order of the Special Judge was erroneous as it had been passed by adopting the principles laid down in the case of K. Veeraswami v. Union of India, (1991) 3 S.C.C. 655. Mr. Gopal Subramaniam, arguing for National Capital Territory of Delhi stated that the principles which were laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court as being applicable to the High Court and Supreme Court Judges, could not be imported and applied to the cases of lower judiciary and that this incorrect application has resulted in miscarriage of justice. He has further argued that all that Lieutenant Governor had to do was to consult the High Court before granting sanction for prosecution. Mr. Subramaniam argued that consultation could not mean concurrence. At the same time Mr. Subramaniam conceded that the consultation has not to be a hollow expression and consultation means effective consultation, particularly when it concerns judicial officer, who happens to be under the administrative control of the High Court and is also appointed at the recommendation of the High Court. I am unable to agree with Mr. Subramaniam's contention. If the Lieutenant Governor can ignore the opinion of High Court in the matters of judicial officers that would mean defeating in spirit the very purpose of Article 235 of the Constitution of India as would appear from the discussion hereunder. From the arguments of both Mr. Subramaniam as also Mr. Lal, who appeared for CBI and adopted arguments of Mr. Subramaniam the main contention was that decision in the case of K. Veeraswami (supra) could not be applied to the present case. I am unable to agree with Mr. Subramaniam. Even if it is assumed that in terms the decision does not apply in to the subordinate judiciary, the principles laid down and contained therein certainly would be attracted when it involves judicial officers. (Para 8)
Further held: It is alleged that the letting out a portion of the estate of the deceased without permission of the Probate Court was in violation of the orders of this Court. This impugned action was in violation of one of the orders passed in those probate proceedings. The said proceedings are still pending and the matters is before one of the Benches of this Court in the said probate proceedings. Mr. Subramaniam concedes that this Court is competent to take action for any breach of its orders. The question raised before this Court is whether the permission granted in the present case by Lieutenant Governor to prosecute the respondent No.1 was validly granted. The answer to that in the light of the above discussion would clearly be in the negative. Therefore, keeping in view the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases referred to hereinabove, I am unable to fault the impugned order. The result is that this petition fails and is dismissed in limine. (Para 10)
Result: Petition dismissed in limine.
( 1 ) IN this petitioner and in the connected Revision No. 164/97, National Capital Territory of Delhi and Central Bureau of Investigation respectively have challenged the same order passed by the Special Judge in C. C. No. 91/96 dated 7. 12. 1996 quashing criminal proceedings against the respondent in RC 16 (A)/92-DLI under Sections 120b, 409 Indian Penal Code and 13 (2) read with Section 13 (1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
( 2 ) IN brief, the facts of the case are as under:- The respondent who is a member of Delhi Higher Judicial Service held the post of Secretary, Law and Judicial, National Capital Territory of Delhi till 28. 2. 1990 and was also appointed, inter-alia, as Administrator General under Section 3 of the Administrator General Act, 1963. The Deputy Administrator General was supposed to assist the Administrator General. After affording repeated opportunities to Mr. Kazim Ali Khan for handing over the charge, he failed to hand over the charge and consequently, a case bearing RC 16 (A)/92-DLI dated 31. 3. 1992 under Sections 120b, 409 Indian Penal Code and 13 (2) read with Section 13 (1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 was registered by CBI against Mr. Kazim Ali Khan alleging criminal conspirary with some unknown persons to amass property for personal use or for the use of his relatives. The property in question was No. 110, Darya Ganj, New Delhi which is part of the estate of Late Mrs. Draupdi Devi. The respondent had applied to the Hon ble High Court in 1973 for collecting and taking possession of the aforesaid property. The High Court in Probate case No. 12/71 permitted the respondent to look after the property being the Administrator General, Further vide order dated 3. 10. 1978, the High Court restrained the said Administrator General from letting out the said property without seeking direction of the High Court. The said Probate proceedings are still pending and the order dated 3. 10. 1978 is still in force. During the period when the respondent and said Mr. Kazim Ali Khan were Administrator General and Deputy Administrator General Respectively, the first floor and second floor of the property fell vacant. The said Administrator General, respondent herein is alleged to have granted the lease of the said first and second floor of the above property to Mr. S. S. Ali Khan, son of the then Deputy Administrator General, Mr. Kazim Ali without prior permission of this Court at an allegedly ridiculously low rent of Rs. 100. 00 per month, though the market rent of the property was Rs. 5,600. 00 per month. The petitioner has alleged that the grant of lease by the respondent was patently against the order dated 3. 10. 1978 which appears to be at the instance of the Deputy Administrator General. It is further alleged that both the Administrator General and Deputy Administrator General entered into criminal conspiracy with the object of causing and facilitating undue pecuniary advantage to Mr. S. S. Ali Khan. Consequently, the State Government vide letter dated 19. 6. 1993 consulted the High Court for sanction to initiate prosecution against the respondent under Section 19 (1) (c) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. The High Court conveyed the following views to the Lieutenant Governor:-
". . . . THE probate case in which Sh. B. S. Chaudhry was appointed as Administrator General by the Court is pending. This Court offers no views. "
( 3 ) AS the High Court offered no views in the matter, the Lieutenant Governor of National Capital Territory of Delhi granted permission to prosecute the respondent. The said prosecution was challenged by the respondent which challenge was upheld by this Court. While disposing of the said C. W. P. , the Division Bench of this Court, inter-alia, held as under:-
"by way of abundant caution, it is made clear that our order shall not come in the way of the Lt. Governor having consultation afresh with the High Court and granting sanction afresh co
SupremeToday
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
