IN THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH
Susmita Phukan Khaund, J.
Manoj Kumar Das – Petitioner
Versus
The Central Bureau of Investigation Represented By Director Of Central Bureau Of Investigation and Ors. – Respondents
Crl.Pet./1146/2023
Decided On : 09-02-2024
Sanction - Criminal Procedure - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 482 - Indian Penal Code - Sections 120(B)/420/467/468/471/511 - Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - Section 13(2) and 13(1)(d) - [120(B)/420/467/468/471/511 IPC, 13(2) and 13(1)(d) PC Act] - The court discussed the requirement of sanction under Section 197(2) of the CrPC for offences alleged to have been committed by a member of the Armed Forces of the Union while acting in discharge of official duty. The court considered the interpretation of 'official duty' and the necessity of sanction for prosecution in cases where the alleged offence is directly connected with official duty. The court emphasized that the issue of sanction can be raised at any stage of the proceedings and abstained from setting aside the proceedings at the initial stage.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought quashing of proceedings against him for offences under Sections 120(B)/420/467/468/471/511 of the IPC and Section 13(2) and 13(1)(d) of the PC Act. The allegations involved fraudulent procurement of house building advance from the Railways through forged documents for non-existent houses and flats. The petitioner, a member of the Armed Forces, contended that prosecution sanction was required under Section 197(2) of the CrPC.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the issue of sanction can be raised at any stage and abstained from setting aside the proceedings at the initial stage. It emphasized that the case was at a nascent stage and the petitioner's act of verifying fake documents for a non-existent NGO and houses could not conclusively be considered within the realm of official duty.
Issues: The main issue was whether the petitioner's act of verifying fake documents for a non-existent NGO and houses could be considered within the realm of official duty, and whether prosecution sanction was required under Section 197(2) of the CrPC.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that the issue of sanction can be raised at any stage of the proceedings and abstained from setting aside the proceedings at the initial stage. It considered the interpretation of 'official duty' and the necessity of sanction for prosecution in cases where the alleged offence is directly connected with official duty.
Final Decision: The petition was dismissed, and the court abstained from setting aside the proceedings at the initial stage, stating that the case was at a nascent stage and the issue of sanction could be raised at any stage.
JUDGMENT :
1. Heard Mr. S. Borgohain, learned counsel for the petitioner Sri Manoj Kumar Das and Mr. M. Haloi learned Special Public Prosecutor for the respondents, CBI.
2. The petitioner has filed this application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC for short) seeking quashing of the proceedings of CR Case No. 4232/2018 arising out of CBI, ACB, Guwahati Case No. 10(A)/2016 registered under Sections 120(B)/420/467/468/471 Indian Penal Code (IPC for short) and read with Section 13(2) and 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (PC Act for short) and pending in the Court of learned Special Judicial Magistrate, Kamrup(M) (Special Magistrate for short). The petitioner has prayed for quashing the impugned orders dated 11.01.2019 and 04.11.2022, passed by the learned Special Magistrate in the abovementioned case, taking cognizance against the petitioner for offences under Sections 120(B)/420/423/467/468/471/511 of the IPC.
3. The FIR unfolds that some officials/officers of Northeastern Frontier Railways (NF Railways for short) in connivance with private persons were instrumental in drawing house building advance from the department by submitting forged and fabricated documents against the already constructed houses and flats. It is alleged that these houses and flats were non-existent and were purported to be constructed by Housing and Development Society, Bijni at various places in Palashbari and Rangia. Wrongful loss was caused to the Railways as house building advance was sanctioned to purchase flats which were non-existent. 28 (Twenty Eight) applicants had applied to the department for purchasing such phantom houses and flats through their applications and submitted forged and fabricated documents to purchase flats purportedly sanctioned and issued by the Housing and Flat Development Society, Bijni. In furtherance of the said conspiracy, the verification officers, who were deputed by the department to verify the genuineness of the applications, in connivance with the applicants, submitted false verification reports, certifying the existence of flats, which were found to be non-existent. In all these 28 HBA Cases, the Housing and Flat Development Society, Bijini allegedly issued the forged documents to the applicants though they were non-existing and Sri Mukul Goswami, President of the Society conspired with the suspected NF Railway officials. 28 (Twenty Eight) accused are named in the FIR and the present petitioner is one of the accused named in the FIR. It is further alleged that the house building advance (HBA) to the applicants were sanctioned in accordance with the Flat Advance Rules subject to the fulfilment of certain terms and conditions and the terms and conditions were not complied with by the accused named in the FIR as the flats were non-existent. An amount of Rs.94,69,000/-(Rupees Ninety Four Lakhs Sixty Nine Thousand) was sanctioned in all the 28 HBA cases, but as Sri Gokul Kumar Deka did not draw the house building advance, wrongful loss to the Railway authority to the tune of Rs.89,09,000/- (Rupees Eighty Nine Lac Nine Thousand) was caused.
4. The FIR was lodged with the allegations of causing wrongful loss to the Government exchequer. After investigation, the CBI filed final report against 55 accused and the petitioner is arrayed as accused at Sl. No. 38 in the charge sheet. On 11.01.2019, the learned Special Judicial Magistrate First Class, Kamrup (M) took cognizance under the aforementioned sections of law and issued summons to the accused. The present petitioner along with fifteen other co-accused approached this Court challenging the impugned order before this Court by invoking the power under Section 482 of the CrPC and petition was numbered as Criminal Petition No. 254/2022. This Court vide order dated 01.04.2022 at motion stage disposed of the matter with a liberty to the petitioners to raise the issue canvassed in the petition before the learned trial Court with a direct
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement of sanction for prosecuting public servants under Section 197 of Cr.P.C. for offences under the Indian Penal Code, emphasizing the ....
Sanction for prosecution under Section 197 of the CrPC is not applicable when a public servant's alleged offenses do not relate to their official duties.
(1) Sanction for prosecution of public servant – The provision must not be abused by public servants to camouflage commission of a crime under supposed colour of public office – While deciding issue ....
Sanction for prosecution of public servant – Section 197 Cr.P.C. does not extend its protective cover to every act or omission of a public servant while in service – It is restricted to only those ac....
The judgment established the need for a reasonable connection between the act complained of and the discharge of official duty, and emphasized the protection under Section 197 of Cr.P.C. to protect r....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.