SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2013 Supreme(Gau) 325

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI
Biplab Kumar Sharma, J.
Subhamoy Gupta & 2 Others - Appellants
Vs.
The State of Assam - Respondent
Crl. Pet 494/2012, [Alongwith Crl. Pet 387, 531, 523, 329, 708, 245, 230, 261, 236, 334, 199, 673, 809, 650, 208, 226, 372, 743, 240, 333, 808, 400, 646, 533, 384, 216, 234, 728, 242, 218, 217, 212, 232, 210, 211, 176, 201, 224, 181, 545, 568, 530, 247, 274, 269, 566, 522, 738, 231 and 399/2012]
Decided on : 07.06.2013

Advocates appeared:
For Appellant/Petitioner/Plaintiff: Ms. M. Hazarika, Sr. Adv, Mr. M.K. Choudhury, Sr. Adv., Mr. P. Pathak, Sr. Adv., Mr. K.P. Sharma, Sr. Adv., Mr. H.R.A. Choudhury, Sr. Adv., Mr. P.K. Goswami, Sr. Adv., Mr. K. Agarwal, Adv., Mr. S. Bhattacharjee, Adv., Mr. D. Das, Adv., Mr. B.M. Choudhury, Adv., Mr. T.J. Mahanta, Adv., Ms. K. Devi, Adv., Mr. A.M. Bora, Adv., Mr. A. Chowdhury, Adv., Mr. S.K. Talukdar, Adv., Mr. J.M.A. Choudhury, Adv., Mr. N.N.B. Choudhury, Adv., Mr. A.I. Uddin, Adv., Mr. D. Talukdar, Adv. and Mr. P. Kataki, Adv.
For Respondents/Defendant: Mr. K.N. Choudhury, Sr. AAG and Mr. Z. Kamar, PP

Headnote:

Prevention of Corruption Act (P.C. Act), 1988 - Section 19 - Criminal Procedure Code,1973 - Section 197 - Section 482 read with section 401 and 397 - Cognizance of any offence - Recovery of signed currency notes - Whether absence of or any error omission or irregularity in such sanction has occasioned or resulted in a failure of justice court shall have regard - When any person who is or was a Judge or Magistrate or a public servant not removable from his office save by or with sanction of Government is accused of any offence alleged to have been committed by him while acting or purporting to act in the discharge of his official duty no Court shall take cognizance of such offence except with the previous sanction - In case of a person who is employed or as the case may be was at the time of commission of the alleged offence employed in connection with affairs of Union of Central Government - Held, In instant batch of criminal petitioners have questioned particular jurisdiction exercised by learned Special Judge towards passing the impugned orders - When tested in the touchstone of principles enumerated above including discussions made above it is to be borne in mind that task of upholding rule of law may require the Court to step in to removing the injustice resulted due to inaction on part of legislature and when and where there is inaction even by executive for whatever reason judiciary must step in exercise of its constitutional obligation under aforesaid provisions to provide a solution till such time as legislature acts to perform its role by enacting proper legislature to cover field - Petition dismissed

JUDGMENT

Biplab Kumar Sharma, J.

1. This batch of criminal petitions under Section 482 read with section 401 and 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, pertaining to prosecution sanction as envisaged under Section 197 of the Cr.P.C., 1973 and Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act (P.C. Act), 1988 have been heard analogously and are being disposed of by this common judgment and order. It will be appropriate at this stage to refer to the said provisions:

197. Prosecution of Judges and public servants.-

(1) When any person who is or was a Judge or Magistrate or a public servant not removable from his office save by or with the sanction of the Government is accused of any offence alleged to have been committed by him while acting or purporting to act in the discharge of his official duty, no Court shall take cognizance of such offence except with the previous sanction-

(a) in the case of a person who is employed or, as the case may be, was at the time of commission of the alleged offence employed, in connection with the affairs of the Union, of the Central Government;

(b) in the case of a person who is employed or, as the case may be, was at the time of commission of the alleged offence employed, in connection with the affairs of a State, of the State Government.

(2) No Court shall take cognizance of any offence alleged to have been committed by any member of the Armed Forces of the Union while acting or purporting to act in the discharge of his official duty, except with the previous sanction of the Central Government.

(3) The State Government may, by notification, direct that the provisions of sub-section (2) shall apply to such class or category of the members of the Forces charged with the maintenance of public order as may be specified therein, wherever they may be serving, and thereupon the provisions of that sub-section will apply as if for the expression "Central Government" occurring therein, the expression "State Government" were substituted.

(4) The Central Government or the State Government, as the case may be, may determine the person by whom, the manner in which, and the offence or offences for which, the prosecution of such Judge, Magistrate or public servant is to be conducted, and may specify the Court before which the trial is to be held.

***

19. Previous sanction necessary for prosecution

(1) No court shall take cognizance of an offence punishable under section 7, 10, 11, 13 and 15 alleged to have been committed by a public servant, except with the previous sanction,-

(a) in the case of a person who is employed in connection with the affairs of the Union and is not removable from his office save by or with the sanction of the Central Government, of that Government;

(b) in the case of a person who is employed in connection with the affairs of a State and is not removable from his office save by or with the sanction of the State Government, of that Government;

(c) in the case of any other person, of the authority competent to remove him from his office.

(2) Where for any reason whatsoever any doubt arises as to whether the previous sanction as required under sub-section (1) should be given by the Central Government or the State Government or any other authority, such sanction shall be given by that Government or authority which would have been competent to remove the public servant from his office at the time when the offence was alleged to have been committed.

(3) Notwithstanding anything contained in the code of Criminal Procedure, 1973,-

(a) no finding, sentence or order passed by a special Judge shall be reversed or altered by a Court in appeal, confirmation or revision on the ground of the absence of, or any error, omission or irregularity in, the sanction required under sub-section (1), unless in the opinion of that court, a failure of justice has in fact been occasioned thereby;

(b) no court shall stay the proceedings under this Act on the ground of any error, omission or irregularity in the sanction granted by the a

























































































































































































































































































































































Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top