SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
DORAISWAMY RAJU,ARIJIT PASAYAT
STATE OF H.P. - Appellant
Versus
M.P.GUPTA - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 339 of 1997 with Criminal Appeal No. 351 of 1997
Decided On : 12/09/2003
Section 197 - Scope and Ambit - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - [SUMMARY OF ACT SECTIONS: Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973] - The court discussed the scope and ambit of Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and its applicability to the accused in the case. The court emphasized the need to balance the protection of public servants with the protection of citizens and highlighted the requirement of sanction for prosecution under Section 197. The judgment also provided a detailed analysis of the legal provisions and their interpretations, emphasizing the need for a reasonable connection between the act and the discharge of official duty for the protection under Section 197 to be applicable.
Fact of the Case:
The accused, a public servant, was charged with various offences related to procurement irregularities. The accused contended that the absence of sanctions as contemplated under Section 197 of the Code and Section 6 of the Old Act rendered the proceedings nonest. The trial Judge negatived the stand, and the accused moved the High Court for interference. The High Court held that certain charges were to be set aside and quashed, while others were to be continued, without expressing an opinion about the validity of the sanction dated 13.6.1990.
Finding of the Court:
The court set aside the High Court's view, emphasizing the need for a reasonable connection between the act and the discharge of official duty for the protection under Section 197 to be applicable. The court clarified that the protection under Section 197 is to protect responsible public servants against vexatious criminal proceedings and highlighted the limits of this protection, emphasizing the need for a liberal and wide construction of the official nature of the act when it is established to have been done in discharge of official duty.
Issues: The pivotal issue revolved around the scope and ambit of Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and its applicability to the accused in the case. The court also addressed the validity of the sanction dated 13.6.1990 and the need for a reasonable connection between the act and the discharge of official duty for the protection under Section 197 to be applicable.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the need for a reasonable connection between the act and the discharge of official duty for the protection under Section 197 to be applicable. It provided a detailed analysis of the legal provisions and their interpretations, highlighting the requirement of sanction for prosecution under Section 197 and the limits of this protection. The court also clarified the nature of power exercised by the Court under Section 197 and the extent of protection it affords to public servants.
Final Decision: The court set aside the High Court's view and allowed the appeals to the extent indicated, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case.
Arijit Pasayat, J.—These two appeals are interlinked as the point involved revolves round the scope and ambit of Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short the Code). The Himachal Pradesh High Court by the impugned judgment held that in the absence of requisite sanction in terms of Section 197 of the Code proceedings initiated against the respondent (hereinafter referred to as the Accused) cannot proceed. Two proceedings were initiated against the accused, one was for alleged commission of offences punishable under Section 120-B, Section 420 read with Section 511 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short the IPC), Section 5(2)(l)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 (for short the Old Act) corresponding to Section 13 (l)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1988 (for short the New Act). The Special Judge (Forests), Shimla, directed the accused to be charged accordingly by his order dated 5.8.1995. In the other case charges were framed against the accused on 5.11.1995 for the offence punishable under Section 467, 468, 471, 420, 120-B IPC and Section 5(2)(l)(d) of the Old Act corresponding to Section 13 (l)(d) of the New Act.
2. Sheaving out unnecessary details, the accusations leading to the framing of charges are as under:— The Controller of Stores, Himachal Pradesh had approved a rate contract for the purchase of galvanized steel barbed wires for fencing at the ex factory rate of Rs. 8400/- per M.T. This rate contract was valid, up to the period ending 30.9.1985. No rate contract was approved in respect of this item for the period beginning 1.10.1985. On 20.10.1985, the Chief Sales Officer and the Executive Officer of H.P. Agro Industries Corporation wrote two identical letters to the Chief Conservator of Forests (T), Himachal Pradesh offering to supply barbed wire/GI wire and U staples to the forest department. The rates quoted were Rs. 10,500/- per M.T for barbed wire (Hot dip) and Rs. 10,000/- per M.T. for electroplated barbed wire. A request was made to the Chief Conservator of Forests to direct all the field officers working under his control to buy their requirements of the above-mentioned items by placing their supply orders with the H.P. Agro Industries Corporation. The petitioner, who was then the Chief Conservator of Forests, on 30.10.1985 issued a circular letter to all the Conservator of Forests working under him advising them to work out their requirements of GI and barbed wires and in the absence of a rate contract to place orders for the supply thereof with the H.P. Agro Industries Corporation, who had offered to make the necessary supply of both these, items immediately. Consequent upon such instructions having been issued by the petitioner, various forests circles placed the supply orders to the extent of about 1200 M.T. of barbed wire with the H.P. Agro Industries Corporation within a period of less than one month. All these orders were booked through M/s. Gimta Pipes, Industrial Area, Dharampur, District Solan, who had been appointed as the booking agent by the H.P. Agro Industries Corporation on 25.10.1985 for the purpose of procuring the supply orders from various indentir z officers. The H.R Agro Industries Corporation, vide its letter dated 6.11.1985 had intimated to all Conservators of Forest in Himachal Pradesh about the firm M/s. Gupta Pipes having been appointed as their authorized booking agent. They were also intimated that a representative of the said firm would be visiting their offices for collecting the necessary supply orders for and on behalf of the H.R Agro Industries Corporation.
3. In the meanwhile, some of the local units manufacturing barbed wires submitted a complaint to the Minister of State for Forests complaining against the procurement of barbed wire by the forest department from the H.P. Agro Industries Corporation in violation of the normal procedure and without obtaining the requisite non-availability certificate from the Controller of Stores
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.