Back
2012(1) JLJ 166
(SUPREME COURT)
G.S. Singhvi and H.L. Dattu, JJ.
Arun Kumar Aggarwal v. State of M.P.
Criminal Appeals No.1706-1708 of 2011 : against the judgment and order of High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Jabalpur, passed in Criminal Revision Petitions No.821 and 966 of 2005 and Miscellaneous Criminal Case No.3403 of 2005; Decided on 2.9.2011.
In the facts and circumstances of the present case, we are of the opinion that the refusal of the learned Special Judge, vide its order dated 26.4.2005, to accept the final closure report submitted by Lokayukta Police is the only ratio decidendi of the order. The other part of the order which deals with the initiation of Challan proceedings cannot be treated as the direction issued by the learned Special Judge. The relevant portion of the order of the learned Special Judge dealing with Challan proceeding reads as "Therefore matter may be taken up seeking necessary sanction to prosecute the accused persons Raghav Chandra, Shri Ram Meshram and Shahjaad Khan to prosecute them under section 13(1-d), 13(2) Anti Corruption Act and under section 120B IPC and for necessary further action, case be registered in the criminal case diary". The wordings of this order clearly suggest that it is not in the nature of the command or authoritative instruction. This order is also not specific or clear in order to direct or address any authority or body to perform any act or duty. Therefore, by no stretch of imagination, this order can be considered or treated as the direction issued by the learned Special Judge. The wholistic reading of this order leads to only one conclusion, that is, it is in the nature of ‘Obiter Dictum‘ or mere passing remark made by the learned Special Judge, which only amounts to expression of his personal view. Therefore, this portion of the order dealing with Challan proceeding, is neither relevant, pertinent nor essential, while deciding the actual issues which were before the learned Special Judge and hence, cannot be treated as the part of the judgment of the learned Special Judge.
[Para 32
Held : In the light of the above discussion, we are of the opinion that, the portion of the order of the learned Special Judge which deals with the Challan proceedings is a mere observation or remark made by way of aside. In view of this, the High Court had grossly erred in considering and treating this mere observation of the learned Special Judge as the direction of the Court. Therefore, there was no occasion for the High Court to interfere with the order of the learned Special Judge.
(2) Words and Phrases -- expression "direction" issue by the Court -- should be in the nature of command or authoritative instruction contemplating the performance of certain act by a person -- should be specific, simple, clear, just and proper depending upon the facts and circumstances of the case -- should not be vague or sweeping. 1953 SCR 126, 1964(6) SCR 411, (1979)4 SCC 282, (1985)4 SCC 628 and JT 1995(1) SC 263 relied on. Blacks Law Dictionary (9th Ed. 2009), Corpus Juris Secundum Vol.26A, at pp. 955-956, P. Ramanatha Aiyar, Advanced Law Lexicon (3rd Ed. 2005) and Words and Phrases Permanent Edition, Vol.12A discussed. [Para 20
(3) Words and Phrases -- expression "Obiter Dictum" or "observation" -- is only remark made by the Court by way of aside while deciding the actual issues of the case -- not relevant, pertinent or essential to decide the actual issues -- not part of the judgment -- has no authoritative value -- beyond the operative part of judgment. JT 1988(4) SC 11, JT 2003(6) SC 519, JT 2006(4) SC 350 and (2007)7 SCC 555 relied on. American Jurisprudence 2d. Vol.20 of pp.437, 525 and 526, P. Ramanatha Aiyar, Advanced Law Lexicon (3rd Ed.2005), Wharton‘s Law Lexicon (14th Ed. 1993), Blacks Law Dictionary (9th Ed. 2009), Words and Phrases Permanent Edition, Vol.29, Corpus Juris Secundum, Vol.21 at pp. 309-312 and Halsbury‘s Laws of England, Fourth Edition (Reissue), Vol.26, para 574 discussed. [Para 31
¼1½ Hkz"Vkpkj fuokj.k vf/kfu;e] 1988 && /kkjk 13¼1½¼?k½ rFkk 13¼2½ && naM lafgrk] 1860 && /kkjk 120[k && yksdk;qDr iqfyl }kjk izLrqr vafre canh fjiksVZ Lohdkj djus ls fo‘ks"k U;k;k/kh‘k dk badkj gh vkns‘k dk ,dek= fofu‘p; vk/kkj && pkyku dk;Zokfg;ksa ds izkjaHk dh ppkZ djus okyk vkns‘k dk vU; Hkkx && ^^brjksfDr** ek= ;k mlds O;fDrxr fopkj dh dksfV esa vkus okyh ^^leqfDr** ek= ekuk tk,xk && ekeys ds okLrfod fook|dksa dk fofu‘p; djus ds fy, u rks lqlaxr] lac) u vko‘;d gh && fu.kZ; dk Hkkx ugha ekuk tk ldrk && mPp U;k;ky; bls eatwjh nsus okys izkf/kdkjh dks tkjh funs‘k ekuus esa U;k;laxr ughaA
izLrqr ekeys ds rF;ksa rFkk ifjfLFkfr;ksa esa] gekjh jk; gS fd yksdk;qDr iqfyl }kjk izLrqr vafre canh fjiksVZ vius vkns‘k fnukad 26-4-2005 }kjk Lohdkj djus ls fo}ku fo‘ks"k U;k;k/kh‘k dk badkj vkns‘k dk ,dek= fofu‘p; vk/kkj gSA vkns‘k dk vU; Hkkx] tks pkyku dk;Zokfg;ksa ds izkjaHk dh ppkZ djrk gS] fo}ku fo‘ks"k U;k;k/kh‘k }kjk tkjh funs‘k ugha ekuk tk ldrkA pkyku dk;Zokfg;ksa dh ppkZ djrk gqvk fo}ku fo‘ks"k U;k;k/kh‘k ds vkns‘k dk lqlaxr Hkkx ;Fkk ifBr gS ^^blfy, ekeyk vfHk;qDr O;fDr;ksa jk?ko panz] Jh jke es"kjke rFkk ‘kgtkn [kku dk Hkz"Vkpkj fojks/kh vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 13¼1½¼?k½] 13¼2½ rFkk naM lafgrk dh /kkjk 120[k ds v/khu vfHk;ksftr djus ds fy, eatwjh ek¡xus ds fy, Lohdkj fd;k tk ldrk gS] rFkk vfrfjDr vko‘;d dkjZokbZ ds fy,] ekeyk nkafMd dsl Mk;jh esa jftLVj fd;k tk,A** bl vkns‘k ds ‘‘kCn Li"V :I ls lq>ko nsrs gS fd ;g vkKk ;k izkf/kdkjh ;k fudk; dks funs‘k nsus ;k lacksf/kr djus ds fy;s Hkh fofufnZ"V ;k Li"V ugha gSA blfy,] dYiuk dh fdlh Hkh mM+ku ij] ;g vkns‘k fo}ku fo‘ks"k U;k;k/kh‘k }kjk tkjh funs‘k le>k ;k ekuk ugha tk ldrkA bl vkns‘k ds iw.kZ:is.k iBu ls ek= ,d gh fu"d"kZ fudyrk gS] vFkkZr~] ;g ^^brjksfDr** ;k fo}ku fo‘ks"k U;k;k/kh‘k }kjk dh xbZ izklafxd fVIi.kh ek= dh izd`fr esa gS] tks mlds O;fDrxr fopkj ek= dh dksfV esa vkrk gS blfy,] pkyku dk;Zokgh dh ppkZ djrk gqvk vkns‘k dk ;g Hkkx] mu okLrfod fook|dksa dk fofu‘p; djrs le; tks fo}ku U;k;k/kh‘k ds le{k Fks] u rks lqlaxr] lac) gS u vko‘;d gh rFkk blfy,] fo}ku fo‘ks"k U;k;k/kh‘k ds fu.kZ; dk Hkkx ugha ekuk tk ldrkA
vfHkfu/kkZfjr % iwoZ foospuk ds izdk‘k esa] gekjh jk; gS fd] fo}ku fo‘ks"k U;k;k/kh‘k ds fu.kZ; dk og Hkkx tks pkyku dk;Zokfg;ksa dh ppkZ djrk gS] i`Fkd~ :i ls dh xbZ leqfDr ;k fVIi.kh ek= gSA bls n`f"Vxr j[krs gq,] mPp U;k;ky; us fo}ku fo‘ks"k U;k;k/kh‘k dh leqfDr ek= dks U;k;ky; dk funs‘k le>us rFkk ekuus esa vR;f/kd xyrh dh FkhA blfy,] mPp U;k;ky; ds fy, fo}ku fo‘ks"k U;k;k/kh‘k ds vkns‘k esa gLr{ksi djus dk dksbZ volj ugha FkkA ¼iSjk 32 ,oa 33
¼2½ ‘‘kCn rFkk okD; && vfHkO;fDr U;k;ky; }kjk tkjh ^^funs‘k** && O;fDr }kjk fuf‘pr drZO; ;k dk;Z ds fuoZgu dh vis{kk djus okyh vkKk ;k izkf/kdkjh vuqns‘k gksuk pkfg, && ekeys ds rF;ksa rFkk ifjfLFkfr;ksa ij fuHkZj djus okyk fofufnZ"V] lk/kkj.k] Li"V] U;k;laxr rFkk mfpr gksuk pkfg, && vLi"V ;k ?kqekonkj ugha gksuk pkfg,A 1953 ,l lh vkj 126] 1964¼6½ ,l lh vkj 411] ¼1979½ 4 ,l lh lh 828] ¼1985½4 ,l lh lh 628 rFkk ts Vh 1995 ¼1½ ,l lh 263 voyafcrA CySDl ykW fMD‘kujh ¼ukSok¡ laLdj.k 2009½] dkiZl tqfjl lsD;qaMe Hkkx 26, i`"B 955&956] ih- jkeukFk v;j] ,M~okaLM ykW ysfDldu ¼r`rh; laLdj.k 2005½ rFkk oMZ~l ,aM Qzsftt ijekusaV ,Mh‘ku] Hkkx 12, foosfprA ¼iSjk 20
¼3½ ‘‘kCn rFkk okD; && vfHkO;fDr ^^brjksfDr** ;k ^^leqfDr** && ekeys ds okLrfod fook|dksa dk fofu‘p; djrs le; U;k;ky; }kjk i`Fkd~ :i ls nh xbZ mfDr ek= && okLrfod fook|dksa fofu‘p; djus ds fy, lqlaxr] lac) ;k vko‘;d ugha && fu.kZ; dk Hkkx ugha && bldk dksbZ vkf/kdkfjd ewY; ugha && fu.kZ; ds izHkkoh Hkkx ds ijs gSA ts Vh 1988 ¼4½ ,l lh 11] ts Vh 2003 ¼6½ ,l lh 519] ts Vh 2006 ¼4½ ,l lh 350 rFkk ¼2007½ 7 ,l lh lh 555 voyafcrA vesfjdu tqfjlizwMsal nwljk laLdj.k Hkkx 20 i`"B 437] 525 Fkk 526] ih- jkeukFk v;~;j ,MokaLM ykW ysfDldu ¼r`rh; laLdj.k 2005½] OgkVZu~ ykW ysfDldu ¼14ok¡ laLdj.k 1993½] CySDl ykW fMD‘kujh ¼ukSok¡ laLdj.k 2009½] oM~lZ ,aM Qszftt] ijekusaV ,Mh‘ku] Hkkx 29] dkiZl tqfjl lsD;qaMe Hkkx 21 i`"B 309&312 rFkk gkWYlcjh t ykWt vkWQ baXySM] prqFkZ laLdj.k ¼iqu% tkjh½] Hkkx 26 iSjk 574 foosfprA ¼iSjk 31
Dattu, J. -- 1. Leave granted.
2. These appeals, by special leave, are directed against the judgment and order dated 22.4.2009 passed by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh in Criminal Revision No.821 of 2005, Criminal Revision Petition No.966 of 2005 and Criminal Case No.3403 of 2005, whereby the High Court has allowed the revision application and inter alia quashed the order dated 26.4.2005 in case diary of Crime No.165 of 2002 passed by the First Additional Sessions Judge and Special Judge, Katni (hereinafter referred to as “learned Special Judge”).
3. The brief factual matrix relating to this appeal is as follows.
3.1 The respondent No.2, Shri Raghav Chandra, who is a Commissioner of M.P. Housing Board, Bhopal along with respondent No.3, Shri Shahjad Khan, posted as the then Collector, Katni, Jabalpur and respondent No.4, Shri Ram Meshram, posted as the Land Acquisition Officer, M.P. Housing Board, Bhopal, whilst, discharging their functions, had allegedly entered into conspiracy and made a secret plot with Shri B.D. Gautam, the Director of Olphert Company and, subsequently, purchased the land belonging to Olphert Company at higher rates for the M.P. Housing Board, thereby, caused a financial loss of over 4 crores to the Government. The appellant reported this alleged transaction of purchase of land by the M.P. Housing Board, alleging financial loss to the
Government, to the Lokayukta, Bhopal. Subsequently, the Special Police Establishment (Lokayukta), Jabalpur (hereinafter referred to as “the Lokayukta Police”) registered an FIR No.165 of 2002 against accused respondents No.2 to 4, as the alleged act or conduct of the accused respondents, all working as Government servants, amounts to an offence under section 13(1-d) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as “the PCA”) and section 120B of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as “the IPC”). Accordingly a Criminal Case No.165 of 2002 was registered against respondents No.2 to 4 in the Court of learned Special Judge. However, the sanction of the Government was necessary as mandated by section 19 of the PCA in order to prosecute the said accused respondents. Acting upon the complaint of the appellant, the Lokayukta Police, after conducting the investigation, had exonerated respondents No.2 to 4 of all the charges levelled against them and submitted final closure report, under section 169 of the Criminal Procedure Code (hereinafter referred to as “the CrPC”), to the learned Special Judge, Katni as no case had been made out to prosecute respondents. Thereafter, the learned Special Judge, Katni after hearing the respondents, appreciating the evidence on record and perusing the case diary, had rejected the closure report vide his order dated 26.4.2005. The operative portion of the order dated 26.4.2005 passed by the learned Special Judge is extracted below :
“31. In this way from above record produced, even prima facie, it is evident that the accused had made secrete plot (durabhi sandhi) with Shri B.D. Gautam the Director of Olphert Company with conspiracy and purchased land of Olphert Company on higher rate and caused financial loss over four crores to the Government which there are sufficient grounds for taking cognizance against the accused persons.
32. Accused person Shri Raghav Chandra is posted as Commissioner of M.P. Housing Board and Shri Ram Meshram is posted as Land Acquiring Officer in M.P. Housing Board and Shri Shahjaad Khan while remaining posted as Collector, all above accused persons working as Government servant, while discharging their Government duties, committed above crime under section 19 of Anti Corruption Act, 1988, it is necessary to obtain sanction to prosecute, Government servant under section 13 of Anti Corruption Act. Therefore matter may be taken up seeking necessary sanction to prosecute the accused persons Raghav Chandra, Shri Ram Meshram and Shahjaad Khan to prosecute them under section 13(1-d), 13(
SupremeToday
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
