Back
2014 Supreme(Mad) 3190
High Court of Judicature at Madras
M. VENUGOPAL, J.
K. Suresh & Another
Versus
The State Rep. by The Inspector of Police
Crl. R.C. No. 424 of 2014 & M.P. No. 1 of 2014
Decided on: 15-09-2014
For the Petitioners:M. Venkataraman, Sr. Counsel for M/s. V. Krishna Kumar, Advocates.
For the Respondent: N. Chandrasekaran, Spl. Public Prosecutor (CBI cases).
The consent of the State Government is not required for investigation if the alleged offences were committed during the period of service under the Central Government, and the validity of the sanction order for prosecution is crucial in such cases.
Headnote:
Criminal Revision Petition - Delhi Special Police Establishment Act - Section 6, Section 19(1) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - The court dismissed the petition seeking discharge from the case, ruling that the investigation was carried out during the period when the accused was in the service of the Central Government, and therefore, the consent of the State Government of Madhya Pradesh was not required. The court also upheld the validity of the sanction order granted by the Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions, Department of Personnel & Training.
Fact of the Case:
The accused, an I.A.S. officer, sought discharge from a case of disproportionate assets, arguing that the investigation was conducted without the consent of the State Government of Madhya Pradesh, and that the sanction order for prosecution was invalid.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the accused was in the service of the Central Government during the period of investigation, and therefore, the consent of the State Government of Madhya Pradesh was not required. The court also upheld the validity of the sanction order granted by the Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions, Department of Personnel & Training.
Issues: The main issues were whether the consent of the State Government of Madhya Pradesh was required for the investigation and whether the sanction order for prosecution was valid.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the investigation was carried out during the period when the accused was in the service of the Central Government, and therefore, the consent of the State Government of Madhya Pradesh was not required. The court also upheld the validity of the sanction order granted by the Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions, Department of Personnel & Training.
Final Decision: The Criminal Revision Petition seeking discharge from the case was dismissed, and the court upheld the validity of the sanction order for prosecution.
1. The Petitioners/A1 and A2 have preferred the instant Criminal Revision Petition as against the order dated 25.03.2014 in Crl.M.P.No.678 of 2012 in C.C.No.32 of 2012 passed by the Learned IX Additional Special Judge for CBI cases, Chennai.
2. While passing the impugned orders dated 25.03.2014 in Crl.M.P.No.678 of 2012 in C.C.No.32 of 2012 (filed by the Petitioners /A1 and A2, seeking discharge from the case), the trial Court in paragraph No.12 had inter alia observed that “... since the prosecution has projected prima facie materials sufficient for proceeding further against the accused and since this Court finds that prior sanction order approval of State of Madhya Pradesh is not required as A1 was in the service of Central Government during the period of offence of criminal misconduct under the P.C. Act in the disproportionate assets case, this Court is not inclined to grant the request of the petitioners, to discharge them from the case...” and resultantly dismissed the petition.
Submissions of the Petitioners/A1:
3. According to the Learned Senior Counsel for the Revision Petitioners/A1&A2, the trial Court had committed an error in dismissing the discharge petition and as such, the said order is contrary to Law, materially irregular and an unjust one.
4. The Learned Counsel for the Petitioners urges before this Court that the trial Court should have appreciated that the 1st petitioner/A1 is an I.A.S officer of the 1982 Batch from Madhya Pradesh Cadre.
5. The Learned Counsel for the Petitioners projects an argument that the check period in the present case was from 01.01.2003 to 04.08.2009 and during the period from 22.08.2003 to 03.09.2004, the 1st Petitioner/A1 was on deputation from Madhya Pradesh Cadre and joined as Zonal Manager in Food Corporation of India, Chennai, attached to the Ministry of Food and Civil Supplies of Government of India. Added further, it is represented on behalf of the Petitioners that the 1st Petitioner/A1 was transferred as Chairman of Chennai Port Trust in the Ministry of Shipping under the Government of India from 03.09.2004 till he completed his tenure on 30.06.2009.
6. The Learned Counsel for the Petitioners brings it to the notice of this Court that on 20.03.2009, the Director, Department of Personnel and Training, New Delhi, the Cadre controlling Authority, (who determine the tenure of deputation) passed an order stating that the tenure of the 1st Petitioner/A1 would come to an end on 30.06.2009 and in the same year, it was specifically mentioned that the officer would be reverted on that date.
7. That apart, in continuation of the aforesaid order, through Office Order No.7/09, of the Ministry of Shipping, Ports Wing, dated 26.09.2009, Capt.Subash Kumar was given charge of Chairman, Chennai Port Trust with effect from 30.06.2009 (A.N.) on relinquishing the charge by the 1st Petitioner/A1. In fact, the copy of the said order was marked among others to the Chief Secretary, Government of Madhya Pradesh, Bhopal. Moreover, on 30.06.2009, itself the said Capt.Subash Kumar, took charge from the 1st Petitioner/A1 and also the compliance letter was marked to the Secretary to the Government of Madhya Pradesh.
8. The Learned Counsel for the Petitioners/A1 & A2, contends that from the afternoon of 30.06.2009 or to be more specific from 01.07.2009, the 1st Petitioner/A1, had ceased to function as Chairman of Chennai Port Trust. In effect the Learned Counsel for the Petitioners proceeds to submit that the 1st Petitioner/A1, ceased to be on Central deputation from 30.06.2009 (AN) and stood reverted to Madhya Pradesh and while the 1st Petitioner/A1 joined duty in the State of Madhya Pradesh on 24.08.2009, the First Information Report was registered on 12.10.2009 at 1900 hours.
9. The Learned Counsel for the Petitioners contends that the 1st Petitioner/A1 joined duty in the State of Madhya Pradesh on 24.08.2009 as stated in the FIR and as such, he ceased to be an Officer of an Authority controlled by
