In The High Court of Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh at Srinagar
Sanjay Dhar, J.
Sanjay Kumar Srivastava and Others – Appellant
Versus
Central Bureau of Investigation – Respondent
CRM(M) No.337/2021
Decided on : 8-7-2022
Ranbir Penal Code, 1989 – Section 120-B read with 420 and Sections 4-H, 5(1)(d) read with Sections 5(2) and 19 of J&K Prevention of Corruption Act, 2006 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Sections 197 and 482 – Conspiracy and cheating – Once a particular set of facts is examined by Central Vigilance Commission whereafter it reaches conclusion that on the basis of material put up before it, no criminal offence is made out against accused public servant and said opinion is accepted by competent authority, it is not open to investigating agency to file a challan on same set of facts against accused public servant by dropping offences under provisions of Prevention of Corruption Act and confining challan only to offences under other penal provisions – Power to grant or refuse sanction for prosecution in hands of sanctioning authority is to safeguard honest public servants from vexatious prosecutions – Grant of sanction for prosecution of a public servant is not an idle formality but same is a mandatory requirement of law – This protection given to a public servant cannot be circumvented by defeating provisions relating to grant of sanction as contained in Prevention of Corruption Act by dropping offences under said Act and launching prosecution in respect of offences under other statutes in a case where same set of facts gives rise to offences under different statutes – Petition allowed. (Paras 12, 15, 19, 21 and 24)
Judgment :
The petitioners have invoked the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Cr. P. C thereby challenging the proceedings initiated by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Srinagar, in a challan arising out of FIR No.RC1232019A0003 for offences under Section 120-B read with 420 of RPC and Sections 4-H, 5(1)(d) read with Section 5(2) of the J&K Prevention of Corruption Act (hereinafter referred to as the J&K PC Act). Challenge has also been thrown to order dated 27.11.2020 and order dated 25.09.2021 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Srinagar, in the challan emanating out of the aforesaid FIR.
2. The facts leading to the filing of the instant petition are that the aforesaid FIR came to be registered by CBI/Anticorruption Bureau (ACB), Srinagar, on the basis of source information alleging therein that the petitioners, who happen to be the officers/officials of Srinagar Central Sub Division, Central Public Works Department, Srinagar, in connivance with accused Ghulam Mohi-ud-din Bhat of M/S Ghulam Mohi-ud-din Bhat & Sons (Govt. Contractor) and other unknown officials/private persons were involved in alleged irregularities i.e. use of sub-standard material resulting in poor workmanship in the construction of helibase and chain link fencing, adjoining Airbase with provision of cabin/helicopter Hangar at BSF Campus, Humhama, Srinagar, during the year 2014-2015. It was further alleged that the aforesaid accused/public servants in connivance with each other and accused contractor managed to submit fake invoices of cement and TMT steel and also used sub-standard material in the execution of aforesaid contract. It was alleged that no technical staff on behalf of the contractor was deployed and no batch mix plant was utilized in the work. It was further alleged that the payments on extra cement to the tune of Rs.28.00 lacs, in addition to the basic quantity of cement has been released by the accused public servants to the contractor thereby providing undue benefit to the said contractor and causing wrongful loss to the Government exchequer.
3. Investigation of the case was set into motion and after investigation, the allegations regarding submission of fake invoices of steel TMT bars and cement were established. It was also established that sub-standard material was used during the execution of the contract work, batch mix plant was not used in execution of the concrete work and that no technical staff was deployed by the contractor at the site. After completion of investigation, offences under Section 4-H, 5(1)(d) r/w 5(2) of J&K PC Act and Section 120-B r/w Section 420 RPC were found established against the petitioner and the co-accused. The respondent approached the competent authority for sanction of prosecution in terms of Section 6 of the J&K PC Act against the petitioner who are public servants but the same was denied by the competent authority of CPWD. After denial of sanction for prosecution, the respondent filed the challan against the petitioners and the co- accused to the extent of commission offences under Section 120-B, 420 RPC only and dropped the offence under J&K PC Act.
4. After the charge sheet was laid before the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Srinagar, an order came to be passed by the said Court on 27.11.2020, whereby the learned Magistrate accepted the contention of Assistant Public Prosecutor, appearing on behalf of the respondent herein that the acts alleged to have been committed by the petitioners fall beyond the scope of their official duty and, as such, no previous sanction under Section 197 of Cr. P. C is required in the case. Accordingly, the learned Magistrate took cognizance of the offences and issued process against the accused including the petitioners herein. This order came to be challenged by petitioner No.1 herein by way of a petition under Section 482 of the Cr. P. C (CRM (M) No.135/2021) before this Court. The aforesaid petition came to be disposed of by this Court in terms of
: Grant of sanction for prosecution of a public servant is not an idle formality but same is a mandatory requirement of law.
(1) Once a particular set of facts is examined by Central Vigilance Commission whereafter it reaches conclusion that on the basis of material put up before it, no criminal offence is made out against....
Prior sanction under Section 197 CrPC and Section 19 PC Act mandatory before directing investigation under Section 156(3) CrPC or registering FIR against public servant for official duty acts; absenc....
Point of Law : High Court was absolutely right in setting aside the order of the Special Judge. Unlike Section 19 of the PC Act, the protection under Section 197 CrPC is available to the public serva....
Any error, omission or irregularity in grant of sanction will not affect any finding, sentence or order passed by a competent Court unless in opinion of court a failure of justice has been occasioned....
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....
Prior sanction under Section 197 CrPC and Section 19 PC Act mandatory before directing investigation under Section 156(3) CrPC or registering FIR against public servant for offences in discharge of o....
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.