Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
P. RAJAMANICKAM, J.
M.S. Jaffar Sait - Appellant
Versus
The Directorate of Vigilance - Respondent
Crl.O.P.No. 13711 of 2019 & Crl.M.P.Nos. 6748 & 6749 of 2019
Decided on : 23-05-2019
Sanction - Criminal Conspiracy - Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - Section 482
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, an IPS Officer, filed a petition to quash the charge sheet against him, citing lack of sanction for prosecution under the Prevention of Corruption Act and the Cr.P.C. The charge sheet alleged criminal conspiracy and misconduct in connection with the allotment of Government Discretionary Quota plots.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the allegations against the petitioner were related to his official duty and thus required prior sanction for prosecution. The court noted that the Competent Authority had declined to grant sanction, making the continuation of the proceedings an abuse of the court's process.
Issues: The main issue was whether the proceedings against the petitioner, an IPS Officer, could continue without prior sanction for prosecution under the Prevention of Corruption Act and the Cr.P.C.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the alleged offences were committed in discharge of the petitioner's official duty, necessitating prior sanction for prosecution. The court also emphasized the mandatory requirement of sanction under the relevant legal provisions.
Final Decision: The court quashed the charge sheet against the petitioner, stating that the continuation of the proceedings would amount to an abuse of the court's process.
(Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code, to call for the records Charge Sheet in C.C.No.25/2013 on the file of the Special Court for Cases under Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, a Chennai and quash the same, as against the petitioner, based on the Memo dated 10.08.2018 filed by the respondent in the Special Court.
1. This petition has been filed by the accused No.1 under Section 482 Cr.P.C to call for the records relating to the Charge Sheet in C.C.No.25/2013 on the file of the Special Court for Cases under Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, Chennai and quash the same, as against the petitioner, based on the Memo dated 10.08.2018 filed by the respondent in the Special Court.
2. The respondent herein had filed a charge sheet stating that the petitioner herein (A1) is an IPS Officer and when he was working as Inspector General of Police, Intelligence at Chennai, during the period between 2008 and 2010 at Chennai and at other places, he along with other accused persons (A2 to A7) committed criminal conspiracy to commit and abet one another in the Commission of the offence of Criminal breach of trust and the offence of criminal misconduct in connection with the allotment of the Government Discretionary Quota (GDQ) plots to the petitioner herein (A1) and his family and Dr.R.Durgashankar (A2). In pursuance of the said criminal conspiracy, the petitioner herein got a plot No.543 A, Kamaraj Nagar, Thiruvanmiyur under GDQ as per the G.O.No.370 dated 04.04.2008. Subsequently for the convenience of the petitioner herein (A1)and A5 for a joint venture of construction, it was converted into 6 plot layout from 7 plot lay out. Subsequently, the petitioner herein (A1) gave an application to cancel the said allotment and accordingly it was cancelled on 30.04.2008. Thereafter on 01.05.2008, the petitioner herein through his daughter Miss.Jenifer gave an application for the allotment of Plot No.540 and the said plot was allotted to her as per G.O.469 dated 06.05.2008. After she made full payment, she gave an application for cancellation of the said Plot on 30.04.2009 and Cancellation Order was issued on 08.05.2009. Thereafter the petitioner herein applied through his wife Tmt.Parvin Jaffer Sait (A2) for the allotment of the same Plot No.540. The said plot was allotted to her as per G.O.No.143 dated 05.06.2009. Thereafter, the said Tmt.Parvin(A2) made an agreement with A7 Mr.T.Udhayakumar and received Rs.1,27,23,000/-. Similar allegations made against A5 also. Further, it is stated that A3 and A4 have abetted other accused in the Commission of the above offences and hence all the accused (A1 to A7) are liable to be punished U/s.120 B IPC, 409 IPC and Sec 13(2) r/w 13(1)(c) and (d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and Section 109 IPC.
3. It is further stated in the charge sheet that sanction orders were obtained from the competent authorities for A3 and A6. Since A4 is retired from service, to sanction is required for him.
4. It is further stated that in respect of the first accused (petitioner herein), a request was sent to the competent authority i.e., the Home Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs, New Delhi to accord sanction to prosecute him u/s 19(1) (a) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 on 03.08.2012. Even after lapse of more than a year, DVAC is yet to receive sanction order from the competent authority and hence based on the opinion issued by the Advocate General of TamilNadu, final report is filed without enclosing the sanction for prosecution in respect of first accused. Further, it is stated that the sanction order will be submitted to the Court as and when it is received and requested to take the case on file.
5. Based on the said final report (charge sheet) the learned Special Judge for cases under Prevention of Corruption Act, Chennai (Special Judge) has taken the case on file in C.C.No.25 of 2013 and issued summons.
6. Subsequently the Competent authority has rejected th
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
