Back
Supreme Court
Honble G.B. PATTANAIK, S.N. PHUKAN & B.N. AGRAWAL, JJ.
P.K. Pradhan - Appellant
Versus
State of Sikkim represented by the Central Bureau of Investigation - Respondents
Criminal Appeal No. 1118 of 2000
Decided On : July 24, 2001
It will be clear that for claiming protection under Sec. 197 of the Code, it has to be shown by the accused that there is reasonable connection between the act complained of and the discharge of official duty. An official act can be performed in the discharge of official duty as well as in dereliction of it. For invoking protection under Sec. 197 of the Code, the acts of the accused complained of must be such that the same cannot be separated from the discharge of official duty, but if there was no reasonable connection between them and the performance of those duties, the official status furnishes only the occasion or opportunity for the acts, then no sanction would be required. If the case as put forward by the prosecution fails or the defence establishes that the act purported to be done is in discharge of duty, the proceedings will have to be dropped. It is well settled that question of sanction under Sec. 197 of the Code can be raised any time after the cognizance, may be immediately after cognizance or framing of charge or even at the time of conclusion of trial and after conviction as well. But there may be certain cases where it may not be possible to decide the question effectively without giving opportunity to the defence to establish that what he did was in discharge of official duty. In order to come to the conclusion whether claim of the accused, that the act that he did was in course of the performance of his duty was reasonable one and neither pretended nor fanciful, can be examined during the course of trial by giving opportunity to the defence to establish it. In such an eventuality, the question of sanction should be left open to be decided in the main judgment which may be delivered upon conclusion of the trial. (Para 15)
(2). A First Information Report was lodged for prosecution of Shri Nar Bahadur Bhandari, the then Chief Minister of Sikkim, and the appellant who was the then Secretary of Rural Development Department, Government of Sikkim, besides certain contractors under Sec. 120-B of the Indian Penal Code read with Sec. 5(2) read with Sec. 5(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the 1947 Act) which correspond to Sec. 13(2) read with Sec. 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as the 1988 Act) and the prosecution case, in short, was that during the year 1983-84, the State Cabinet of Sikkim decided to implement 36 Rural Water Supply Schemes in the State of Sikkim under minimum needs programme for a total cost of Rs. 1,62,31,630/- and while approving the above proposal the Cabinet specifically decided that the works worth more than Rs. 1,00,000/- shall be put to open tender while works below Rs. 1,00,000/- shall be executed through Panchayat nominees. The approval of the State Cabinet was communicated to the Rural Development Department for necessary follow up action for implementation of these schemes. In order to implement 19 of the schemes, the Department issued tender notice on 19.12.1983 inviting sealed tenders, from enlisted contractors having resources and experience in such Government works. In response to this notice various tenders were received by the Department and the same were opened on 18th January 1984 by a tender committee. Necessary action for acceptance/rejection of tender then followed in respective files. It was alleged that when the matter was thus being processed, Shri Nar Bahadur Bhandari, the then Chief Minister of Sikkim, Shri P.K. Pradhan, the then Secretary, Rural Development Department, Government of Sikkim who is the appellant in this appeal along with fifteen contractors, named in the First Information Report, entered into a criminal conspiracy with the object of securing contract works in favour of the said contractors by corrupt or illegal means or by otherwise abusing the position of the then Chief Minister and the appellant as public servant and got the works awarded in favour of contractor aforesaid at low rates thereby causing pecuniary advantage and corresponding loss to the State of Sikkim, by various commissions and omissions.
(3). After registering the case, the matter was duly investigated and charge sheet was submitted against the appellant and the aforesaid accused who was the then Chief Minister of Sikkim under Sec. 5(2) read with Sec. 5(1)(d) of the 1947 Act corresponding to Sec. 13(2) read with Sec. 13(1)(d) of the 1988 Act. Charge sheet was also submitted against the aforesaid two official accused persons besides fifteen contractors referred to above for their prosecution under Sec. 120-B of the Indian Penal Code read with Sec. 5(2) read with Sec. 5(1)(d) of the 1947 Act corresponding to Sec. 13(2) read with Sec. 13(1)(d) of the 1988 Act. It may be stated that before cognizance was taken upon the charge sheet, the then Chief Minister Shri Nar Bahadur Bhandari ceased to continue as such and the appellant ceased to be public servant. By order dated 14.09.1994, the Special Judge took cognizance and summoned all of the aforesaid accused persons including the appellant. On behalf of the appellant, who was Secretary, Department of Rural Development, Government of Sikkim at the time of commission of the alleged offence, a preliminary objection was raised before the
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
