Back
2011 (6) Supreme 163
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
G.S. Singhvi and H.L. Dattu, JJ.
Arun Kumar Aggarwal — Appellant
versus
State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors. — Respondents
Criminal Appeal Nos. 1706-1708 of 2011
(Arising out of S.L.P. (Crl.) Nos. 364-366 of 2010)
Decided on : 2-9-2011
Words and Phrases-‘Direction’- Direction’ means a guiding or authoritative instruction, prescription, order, command- Direction issued by Court is in the nature of a command or authoritative instruction which contemplates the performance of certain duty or act by a person upon whom it has been issued- The direction should be specific, simple, clear and just and proper depending upon the facts and circumstances of the case but it should not be vague or sweeping (Paras 19, 20)
Obiter dictum -Obiter dictum is a mere observation or remark made by the court by way of aside while deciding the actual issue before it- The mere casual statement or observation which is not relevant, pertinent or essential to decide the issue in hand does not form the part of the judgment of the Court and have no authoritative value- The expression of the personal view or opinion of the Judge is just a casual remark made whilst deviating from answering the actual issues pending before the Court- These casual remarks are considered or treated as beyond the ambit of the authoritative or operative part of the judgment (Para 31)
Facts of the Case :
Respondents 2to4 herein in the instant case while, discharging their functions as government servants , allegedly entered into conspiracy and made a secret plot with Director of Olphert Company and, purchased land belonging to Olphert Company at higher rates for M.P. Housing Board, thereby, caused a financial loss of over ‘4 Crores to Government. On Registration of FIR ,Lokayukta Police, after conducting investigation, exonerated respondent nos. 2 to 4 of all the charges leveled against them and submitted final closure report.Special Judge, after appreciating the evidence on record and perusing case diary, rejected closure report.Revision Petitions thereagainst was Allowed by High Court quashing order of Special Judge.
2. Present appeal has been filed against order of High Court on plea that High Court was not justified in quashing Order of Special Judge and treating it to be a direction issued to sanctioning authority to prosecute accused respondent nos.2 to 4.
Findings of the Court :
The Court held that in the facts and circumstances of the instant case, refusal of Special Judge, to accept the final closure report submitted by Lokayukta Police was the only ratio decidendi of the Order. The other part of the Order which deals with initiation of Challan proceedings could not be treated as direction issued by Special Judge. Wordings of Order clearly suggested that it was not in the nature of command or authoritative instruction. This Order was 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 could be considered or treated as direction issued by Special Judge. It was in the nature of ‘Obiter Dictum’ or mere passing remark made by Special Judge, which only amounted to expression of his personal view. Impugned judgment of High Court was set aside. Appeals were allowed
Key Points: - The judgment analyzes whether a Special Judge’s remark about initiating challan proceedings can be treated as a direction to sanction prosecution or as obiter dictum (!) (!) (!) . - The Court defines "direction" as a command or authoritative instruction that is specific, clear, and capable of directing a duty, and distinguishes it from mere observations or obiter dictum (!) (!) . - It states that a direction should be express, not vague or sweeping, and must address a specific authority or body to perform an act or duty (!) (!) . - The Court discusses the concept of obiter dictum as remarks not necessary to decide the issue and lacking binding authority, especially when not part of the ratio decidendi (!) (!) . - The High Court’s quashing of the Special Judge’s order was set aside, and the appellate court restored the Special Judge’s order, holding that the Challan-related portion was obiter dictum and not a directive (!) (!) . - The judgment directs compliance with the trial court’s order within two months, clarifying the nature of the directive and its enforceability (!) (!) .
JUDGMENT
H.L. 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: 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 respondent nos. 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 120-B of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as “the IPC”). Accordingly a Criminal Case No. 165 of 2002 was registered against respondent nos. 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 respondent nos. 2 to 4 of all the charges leveled against them and submitted final closure report, under Section 169 of the Criminal Procedure Code (hereinafter referred to as “the Cr. P.C.”), 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 U/S 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 Secti
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
