Home Case Index All Cases Indian Laws Indian Laws + HC Indian Laws - 2014 (6) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2014 (6) TMI 1059 - HC - Indian LawsConspiracy - Whether the order of sanction is mandatory from the competent authority for filing chargesheet against the petitioner? - Section 19 of the P.C. Act and also Section 197 of Cr.P.C. - HELD THAT:- It is settled principle of law that the order of sanction is only an administrative act and not a quasi judicial one. The competent authority can apply its mind on those facts and may pass appropriate orders for sanction of prosecution considering the facts and the prima facie evidence of commission of offence. The competent authority may grant or refuse to grant sanction - Before taking cognizance of the offence it is open to the competent authority to grant sanction and the prosecution is at liberty to produce the order of sanction even during the trial of the case. The emphasis of Section 197 Cr.P.C. “ that no court shall take cognizance of such offence except with the previous sanction” suggests that before taking cognizance of offence alleged prior sanction from the competent authority is required. Before taking cognizance of the offence it is open to the competent authority to grant sanction and the prosecution is at liberty to produce the order of sanction even during the trial of the case - When, where court proceeds against public servant without sanction, he can raise the issue of jurisdiction of court. Sanction can be obtained even during trial depending upon facts of individual case. In that view of the matter, the respondent investigating agency is competent to file chargesheet even without obtaining prior sanction from the competent authority. Therefore the first issue is answered against the petitioner. Whether any prima facie case is made out against the petitioner as per the material placed by the prosecution agency warranting interference of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C.? - HELD THAT:- It is also settled law that no hard-and-fast rule can be laid down and each case has to be considered on its own merits. The Court, while exercising its inherent jurisdiction, although would not interfere with a genuine complaint keeping in view the purport and object for which the provisions of Section 482 and 483 of the Code of Criminal Procedure had been introduced by Parliament but would not hesitate to exercise its jurisdiction in appropriate cases. One of the paramount duties of the superior courts is to see that a person who is apparently innocent is not subjected to prosecution and humiliation on the basis of a false and wholly untenable complaint - In the instant case, APIIC is the nodal agency with regard to allotment and fixation of price of land and the fact that the petitioner being the Secretary of the IT and C Department even according to the material placed by the prosecution is head of the Department only to process the application received by the department pursuant to the decision taken by the Government and also in view of the meetings conducted by the then Chief Minister. In the instant case, APIIC is the nodal agency with regard to allotment and fixation of price of land and the fact that the petitioner being the Secretary of the IT and C Department even according to the material placed by the prosecution is head of the Department only to process the application received by the department pursuant to the decision taken by the Government and also in view of the meetings conducted by the then Chief Minister - the petitioner has not taken any independent decision in allotment of land or to fixation of price of land. Even otherwise, the charge sheet or the material does not disclose any criminal offence at all much less an offence either under Section 420 or Section 120-B IPC and 409. From the counter averments and also the contents of the charge sheet itself the respondent investigation authority categorically stated that it is the APIIC which is the nodal agency for allotment of land and fixation of land value; and that after receiving the applications from three companies note was sent by the APIIC pursuant to the decision of the Government vide G.O.Ms.No.11 inviting applications from the companies for establishment of IT companies, that the APIIC which was authorised in that behalf, pursuant to the recommendations of the CCITI has forwarded the file after stating that “the Government after careful consideration has short listed some companies for Hyderabad and Visakhapatnam” and also stated in the note file that “information furnished by the company satisfied the requirement as fixed by the Government”, whereupon the note was processed and sent to the Law Secretary, Finance, Revenue and Chief Secretary and that taking into consideration the opinion of the Chief Secretary and thus the file passed through various phases - Since no ingredient under Section 120-B and 409 have been made out so also the ingredients of Section 420 IPC therefore, there is no reasons as to why the petitioner must be made to undergo the agony of a criminal trial. On perusal of material produced by the prosecution itself, are inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground to proceed against the petitioner; that allegations made in the charge sheet and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose commission of any offence alleged against the petitioner. Therefore, allowing the proceedings to continue against the petitioner would also amount to an abuse of the process of court. Hence, the cognizance of offence and the chargesheet filed insofar as the petitioner is liable to be quashed in order to meet the ends of justice. Petition allowed.
|