Back
2001 Supreme(MP) 67
High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
S. C. PANDEY
RAMRAJ PRASAD KARSOLIYA - Appellant
Versus
STATE OF M.P. - Respondents
Cr. R. 958 Of 2000
Decided On : 01/25/2001
A.Choudhary, K.K.Gautam, S.C.DUTTA
The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of the authority required to grant sanction to prosecute a public servant under Section 19(1)(c) of the Prevention of Corruption Act.
Headnote:
Prevention of Corruption Act - Sanction for Prosecution - Sections 7, 13(1)(d), 13(2), 19 - The court discussed the authority required to grant sanction to prosecute the applicant under Section 19(1)(c) of the Act. It concluded that the sanction granted for prosecution of the applicant was not in accordance with the law and set aside the proceedings pending before the Special Judge.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a Managing Director, was being tried under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act for allegedly taking a bribe.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the sanction granted for prosecution of the applicant was not in accordance with the law and set aside the proceedings pending before the Special Judge.
Issues: The main issue was the authority required to grant sanction to prosecute the applicant under Section 19(1)(c) of the Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The court interpreted the relevant provisions of the M. P. Rajya Beej Evam Farm Vikas Nigam Adhiniyam, 1980 and concluded that the sanction granted for prosecution of the applicant was not in accordance with the law.
Final Decision: The revision was allowed, and the court set aside the proceedings pending before the Special Judge. However, it was made clear that the order passed shall not prevent the prosecution from filing a fresh charge-sheet after obtaining proper sanction for prosecution of the applicant from the State Government.
( 1 ) THIS criminal revision is directed against the order dated 6/04/2000 passed in Special Criminal Case No. 18/97 by the Special Judge, Bhopal authorised under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short "the Act") to try the cases arising out of the Act.
( 2 ) THE undisputed facts of the case are that the petitioner was posted as the Managing Director of M. P. Rajya Beej Evam Farm Vikas Nigam (for short "the Nigam" ). He is being tried under Sections 7 and 13 (1) (d) read with Section 13 (2) of the Act because it was alleged that he had taken bribe of Rs. 15,000/- from complainant Karamveer Singh.
( 3 ) THE charge-sheet discloses that sanction for prosecution of the applicant as per Section 19 of the Act was granted by the Board on 24-10-97. The sanction order shows that on 22-3-97 when the alleged offence was committed, the applicant was working as Managing Director of the Nigam. It also appears from the sanction that initially he was an empolyee of the aforesaid Nigam as General Manager (Engineering), and he was posted as a Managing Director in absence of the Managing Director to be appointed under Section 12 of M. P. Rajya Beej Evam Farm Vikas Nigam Adhiniyam, 1980 (for short "the Adhiniyam" ). It appears that there was a discussion in the meeting regarding power to the Board to grant sanction and the Board was advised that it had power to do so. Accordingly, the sanction was granted. It appears that the basis for the legal advise rendered to the Board was perhaps because the applicant was the regular employee of the Nigam and he was governed by the rules framed under the Adhiniyam.
( 4 ) AFTER filing of the charge-sheet, the applicant challenged the order passed by the Board saying that he was appointed by the State Government under Section 12 of the Adhiniyam and, therefore, the power to grant sanction is with the State Government and not with the Nigam on whose behalf the Board had granted sanction. The learned trial Judge rejected the contention holding that the sanction was valid. In this revision, the same argument is being repeated on behalf of the applicant to the effect that it was the State Government who was authorised to grant sanction and, therefore, the sanction was invalid in view of Section 19 of the Act.
( 5 ) LEARNED counsel for the non-applicant/state opposed the application and relied on decisions of Supreme Court reported in AIR 1990 SC 1976 : (1990 Cri LJ 1921) (Dr. Lakshmansingh Himasingh Vaghela v. Naresh Kumar Chandrashanker Jha and AIR 1998 SC 1945 : (1998 Cri LJ 2826) (Mohd. Hadi Raja v. State of Bihar ). Both the cases relate to Section 197, Cr. P. C. and do not relate to sanction under the Act and, therefore, these are distinguishable. However, the applicant is a public servant within the meaning of Section 2 (c) (iii) of the Act and this fact was not disputed.
( 6 ) IT may be made clear at the outset that Section 19 (1) of the Act would govern the case of the applicant for determining the authority required to grant sanction to prosecute the applicant. It reads as under :-"19. Previous sanction necessary for prosecution- (1) 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 and 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 the 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 ) IT may readily be seen that the applicant was not employed in connection with the affairs of the Union or the State. He was an employee of the Nigam from the very inception, theref
