Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI (ITANAGAR BENCH)
NANI TAGIA, J.
State of Arunachal Pradesh - Appellant
Versus
Er. Dani Gambo and Ors. - Respondents
Crl. Rev. Pet. No. 05(AP) of 2018
Decided On : 22-06-2021
Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 120(B), 420, 409, 21, 2(c) – Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 239, 482, 397 – Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 – Sections 13 (1)(c)(d) & 13(2) – Criminal conspiracy – Cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property – Saving of inherent powers of High Court – Calling for records to exercise powers of revision – Criminal revision petition – AD cards in respect of Respondents No. 22 & 23 have been received back after causing service of notices on said respondents – Held, Said decisions are not relevant in instant case as court are not considering the legality of charges framed rather what court are concerned in instant case is very jurisdiction of learned Special Judge, to pass impugned order, discharging all respondents, when it had no power and jurisdiction to frame charges itself – Fact that prosecution sanction against all respondents have now been granted by competent authority as noted hereinabove; Court of learned Special Judge(PCA), shall proceed with the trial of case as had already been directed by this Court vide order, with right earnest and conclude same as expeditiously as possible – Ordered Accordingly.
JUDGMENT :
Nani Tagia, J.
1. Heard Mr. O. Pada, learned Spl. P.P., SIC, appearing on behalf of the petitioner-State of Arunachal Pradesh. Also heard Mr. T.T. Tara, learned counsel, assisted by Mr. S.R. Rabha, learned counsel, appearing on behalf of the private Respondents No. 1 to 16 and 19 to 21.
2. As regards Respondent No. 17, it is submitted by Mr. Rabha, learned counsel, that the said respondent No. 17, in the meantime, has expired.
3. Office Note, dated 25.06.2018, indicates that Officer-in-Charge of Itanagar Police Station had returned the served notice in respect of Respondent No. 18.
4. Office Note, dated 10.04.2018, also indicates that AD cards in respect of Respondents No. 22 & 23 have been received back after causing service of notices on the said respondents.
In view thereof, notices on all the respondents have been duly served.
5. This is a criminal revision petition under Section 397 read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, preferred by the State of Arunachal Pradesh, praying for setting aside of the impugned order, dated 21.12.2017, passed by the learned Special Judge (PCA), Yupia, in PCA Case No. 01/2016 (YPA) corresponding to SIC(Vig.) PS. Case No. 05/2011 whereby all the respondents/accused persons have been discharged u/s. 239 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, from the charges u/ss. 120(B)/420/409 of the Indian Penal Code read with Sections 13 (1)(c)(d) & 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
6. The facts leading to the filing of the instant revision petition, briefly, be stated, as under:
At a later point of time, the said Yazali Police case was transferred to the SIC(Vig.) PS, Chimpu, Itanagar, and the same was reregistered as SIC(Vig.) P.S. Case No. 05/2011. On completion of the investigation, the SIC (Vig.) had filed the charge-sheet before the learned Special Judge (PCA), Yupia, vide Charge-Sheet No. 06/2015, dt. 14.9.2015, which was forwarded by a letter, dated 14.10.2015, by the Officer-in-Charge, SIC (Vig.) PS, Chimpu, Itanagar (Annexure-2 series), against all the respondents/accused persons u/ss. 120(B)/420/409 of the Indian Penal Code read with Sections 13(1)(c)(d) & 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. In the said Charge-Sheet, it is stated that during the further course of investigation, few more persons are found to be liable for prosecution in the instant case where prosecution sanction is being prayed for and that the prosecution sanction granted and any other development, shall be submitted through a supplementary charge-sheet. Thereafter, the learned Special Judge(PCA), Yupia, vide impugned order, dated 21.12.2017, has passed the order u/s. 239 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, discharging all the respondents/accused persons from the charges under Sections 120(B)/420/409 of the IPC read with Sections 13 (1) (c)(d) & 13(2) of the PC Act, 1988, for want of prosecution sanction as required under Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, as well as Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
7. An additional affidavit has been filed by the Deputy Superintendent of Police(SIC), Government of Arunachal Pradesh, on 22.03.2018, to indicate that prosecution sanction in respect of 21 nos. of official respondents have, now, been granted by the competent authority of the Government of Arunachal Pradesh through the Commissioner, PWD, Government of Arunachal Pradesh, Itanagar, vide Memo. No. SPWD-290/2014 dated 16.03.2018, which is stated to hav
The judgment established that the absence of sanction can be raised at the inception and at the threshold as it goes to the root of the matter. It also emphasized that the validity or illegality of t....
Sanction for prosecution of public servants must reflect independent assessment; repeated refusals by the authority, absent new evidence, undermine legitimacy of prosecution.
The competent authority to grant sanction for prosecution of an IAS officer is the Central Government under the Prevention of Corruption Act.
The Competent Authority cannot review its earlier decision to refuse sanction without fresh materials, and there is a distinction between absence of sanction and alleged invalidity on account of non-....
The requirement of prior sanction under the Prevention of Corruption Act is essential for the prosecution of public servants, and failure to obtain it renders proceedings void unless it results in a ....
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
