Back
2001 Supreme(All) 1150
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Bhagwan Din
UDAI NARAIN - Appellant
Versus
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH THROUGH CBI - Respondents
Criminal Revision 345 Of 2001
Decided On : 12/10/2001
BIRESHVAR NATH, NANDITA, SRIVASTAVA
The main legal point established is that the authority granting prosecution sanction must apply its mind to the facts and evidence, and the trial without a valid sanction is beyond the jurisdiction of the Court.
Headnote:
Sanction - Prosecution of Public Servant - Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - Section 19(1) - 120-B, IPC, Sections 8, 10, 13(2) - [19(1)]
Fact of the Case:
The case involved the prosecution of a public servant under Section 120-B, IPC and Sections 8, 10, 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The accused challenged the validity of the prosecution sanction, which was rejected by the Trial Court.
Finding of the Court:
The Court found that the prosecution sanction obtained by the CBI was not valid as the Minister concerned did not apply his mind and relevant material was not produced before him. The Court quashed the impugned order and held the prosecution sanction not valid, allowing the revision and granting liberty to the CBI to obtain a valid sanction for prosecution.
Issues: Validity of prosecution sanction under Section 19(1) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court emphasized that the authority granting prosecution sanction must apply its mind to the facts and evidence, and the trial without a valid sanction is beyond the jurisdiction of the Court. It was held that the prosecution sanction was not valid as the Minister did not apply his mind and relevant material was not considered.
Final Decision: The impugned order was quashed, and the prosecution sanction was held not valid, allowing the revision and granting liberty to the CBI to obtain a valid sanction for prosecution.
( 1 ) THIS is a criminal revision directed against the order dated 25. 7. 2001 passed by the Special Judge. Anticorruption (Central), U. P. Lucknow in Criminal Case No. 39 of 1998, State v. Udai Narain and Another by which the Trial Court rejected the objection raised by the accused revisionist and held that the prosecution sanction dated 8. 5. 1996 accorded againstthe accused revisionist by Tarsem Lal, the Under Secretary, Government of India is complete and valid.
( 2 ) THE facts and the circumstances giving rise to the present revision as narrated in the charge- sheet are that revisionist Udai Narain was functioning as Additional Collector, Central Excise at Allahabad/lucknow during November, 1993 and while functioning as such on 8. 11. 1993. Shri N. P. Tiwari, Dy. S. P. (CBI) accompanied by Inspectors B. C. Shanna: Ashok Babu, Haripal Sehgal. Chief Manager. PNB, Sadar Bazar Branch. Lucknow, A. A. Kazmi, Dy. Manager, (Vig.) PCI, RO, Lucknow, C. A. Ram Sundaram, Manager, PNB, Zonal Office, Lucknow intercepted a Fiat. Car bearing Registration No. MEN-14 accompanied by the revisionist and the coaccused Abdul Aziz Sreshamwala at Amausi Airport and saw the transaction of Rs. two lacs as bribe. Shri N. P. Tiwari, Dy. S. P. (CBI) recovered a Brief Case containing 400 currency notes each of Rs. 500/- denomination amounting to Rs. 2,000,00/- (Rs. two lacs only ). It is alleged that. those currency note. s were brought by Abdul Aziz Reshamwala for payment to the revisionist Udai Narain as demanded by him for getting settled his matter relating to seizure of Indian currency of Rs, 21,23,050/- as illegal gratification other than legal remuneration from the said businessman. Shri N. P. Tiwari, Dy. S. P. (CBI) prepared the search and recovery memo, sealed the currency notes in the envelope in the presence of the witnesses and the C. B. I. Officers. He also prepared the seizure memo thereat.
( 3 ) ON the basis of the search and seizure memo a case vide R. C. No.-39 (A)/93 CEl/ Lucknow was registered and aforesaid N. P. Tiwari, Dy. S. P. (CBI) completed the investigation and after obtaining impugned sanction order, filed charge- sheet in the Court of the Special Judge, Anti- Corruption (Central), U. P. Lucknow.
( 4 ) THE revisionist challenged the validity of the sanction for prosecution against him under Section 120-B, IPC and Sections 8, 10, 13 (2) read with Section q (1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The Trial Court rejected the objection and held the sanction for prosecution valid by the impugned order, hence the revision.
( 5 ) HEARD Mr. Nandit Srivastava, the learned Counsel appearing for the revisionist and Mr. Bireshwar Nath, the Standing Counsel appearing for the opposite party.
( 6 ) SECTION 19 (1) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter to be referred as Act) contemplates that No Court shall take cognizance of an offence punishable under Sections 7, 10, 11, 13 and 15 alleged to have been committed by a public servant, except with the previous sanction: (a) in the case of a person who is employed in connection with the affairs of the Union arid is not removable from his office save by or with the sanction of the Central Government, of that Government: (b) in the case of a person who is employed in connection with the affairs of a State and is not removable from his office save by or with sanction of the State Government, of that Government; (c) in the case of any other person, of the authority competent to remove him from his office.
( 7 ) THE Legislature wisely has framed Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 so as to provide an umbrella of protection of Government servants against frivolous prosecution. Therefore Section 19 (1) of the Act provides that no Court shall take cognizance of an offence punishable under Sections 7, 10, 11, 13 and 15 alleged to have been committed by a public servant. A trial without a valid sanction has been held to be a trial without juri
