Back
2017 Supreme(Mad) 1281
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
N.SATHISH KUMAR, J.
K. Rajendran – Petitioner
Vs.
State rep. by Additional Superintendent of Police Vigilance and Anti Corruption Vellore – Respondent
Crl.R.C. No.64 of 2017 and Crl.MP.No.673 of 2017
Decided On : 13-06-2017
For the Petitioner: Mr. S.Sairaman
For the Respondent: Mr. E. Raja, Additional Public Prosecutor
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the determination of whether an individual falls under the definition of a public servant and the requirement of prior sanction for prosecuting a public servant should be ascertained during the trial.
Headnote:
Prevention of Corruption Act - Public Servant - Sections 13(2) and 13(1)(e) of Prevention of Corruption Act 1988, Section 109 IPC - Section 197(1) Cr.P.C. - [SUMMARY OF ACTS AND SECTIONS REFERENCED: The court discussed the definition of a public servant under Section 2(c) of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1988 and its applicability to the petitioner who was working as Secretary of a Co-operative Society. The court also considered the requirement of prior sanction under Section 197(1) of Cr.P.C. for prosecuting a public servant. The judgments reported in STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS V. BRIJILAL SADASUKH MODANI, CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION, BANK SECURITIES & FRAUD CELL AND ANOTHER VS. RAMESH GELLI AND OTHERS, and STATE OF MAHARASHTRA V. BRIJILAL SADASUKH MODANI were referenced to interpret the legal provisions and their applicability to the case. The court emphasized that the determination of whether the petitioner falls under the definition of a public servant and the requirement of prior sanction should be ascertained during the trial. The court also highlighted the need for a full-fledged trial to establish the petitioner's status as a public servant and the necessity of evidence regarding financial aid received by the society. The court concluded that the order of dismissal passed by the Trial Court did not suffer any irregularity or illegality. Therefore, the Criminal Revision Petition was dismissed.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a Secretary of a Co-operative Society, was charged with acquiring disproportionate wealth. The Trial Court took cognizance of the offence and dismissed the petitioner's application for discharge.
Finding of the Court:
The Court found that the Trial Court's order of dismissal did not suffer any irregularity or illegality.
Issues: The main issue was whether the order passed by the Trial Court in dismissing the application filed by the petitioner for discharge suffered any illegality or irregularity.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the need for a full-fledged trial to determine the petitioner's status as a public servant and the necessity of evidence regarding financial aid received by the society. The court also highlighted that the requirement of prior sanction for prosecuting a public servant should be raised during the trial.
Final Decision: The Criminal Revision Petition was dismissed.
Revision Case is directed against the order of dismissal dated 30.06.2016 passed in Crl.M.P.No.564 of 2014 in S.C.No.1 of 2014 by the learned Special Judge/Chief Judicial Magistrate, Vellore for Prevention of Corruption Act, Chennai.
2. The facts leading to the filing of the present revision is as follows:
While the petitioner was working as Secretary, Primary Agricultural Co-Operative Society, Girisamudram, Vaniyambadi Taluk, he acquired substantial portion of assets in the name of his wife. A detailed enquiry was conducted by the respondent as against the petitioner in respect of disproportionate wealth acquired by the accused during the period emanates from 01.3.2000 to 01.8.2008. After investigation, a Charge sheet has been laid as against the petitioner and other accused for the offences under Sections 13 (2) read with 13 (1) (e) of Prevention of Corruption Act 1988 read with 109 IPC. When the matter was taken cognizance by the learned Special Judge for Prevention of Corruption Act, in S.C.Nos. 1 of 2014, the petitioner herein and other accused have filed petitions u/s.227 of Cr.P.C. to discharge them from the aforesaid charges. After contest, the said petitions were dismissed by the learned Special Judge. Aggrieved over the same, the petitioner/1st accused has come up with the captioned Petition.
3. The learned counsel for the Revision petitioner vehemently contended that the petitioner is not a public servant as contemplated under Section 2(c) of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1988 as the Society, in which he was working, was not funded by the State Government and the Members of the Society raised their own funds and that all monetary transaction was within their members. Even though the contention of the respondent that the petitioner is a Government Servant is taken as true, the prosecution is vitiated as the respondent has failed to obtain order of sanction from the Government, as contemplated under Section 197 (1) Cr.PC. to prosecute the petitioner. Hence, it is submitted by the learned counsel that the charges levelled against the petitioner are baseless and not maintainable in law. Therefore, it is the submission of the learned counsel that the learned Special Judge, without appreciating all these facts, has simply dismissed the application filed by the petitioner for discharge, which is not sustainable. Thus, the learned counsel prays for allowing the captioned petition.
4. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor vehemently opposed the captioned petition contending that as per Section 2 (c) (ix) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, the Secretary of the Co-operative Society engaged in agriculture, industry, trade or banking, receiving or having received any financial aid from the Central Government or a State Government, is also a public servant and hence the prosecution against the petitioner under Prevention of Corruption Act is maintainable. It is also the contention of the learned Additional Public Prosecutor that since the petitioner is not in service either at the time of filing the final report or at the time of taking cognizance of the offence by the Trial Court, the prior sanction as contemplated under Section 197 (1) of Cr.P.C. is not necessary. According to the learned Additional Public Prosecutor strong suspicion is available as against the accused. Therefore, it is the submission of the learned Additional Public Prosecutor that, at this stage, roving enquiry is not feasible. It is submitted by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor that the learned Special Judge, after appreciating the entire materials produced by the prosecution, has rightly dismissed the application filed by the petitioner for discharge and hence, the same does not warrant interference of this Court. Therefore, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor prays that the petition has to be dismissed.
5. In support of his arguments, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor has placed much emphasis on the judgments reported in STAT
