TMI Blog2005 (10) TMI 594X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng the provisions of Section 300 of the Code as even then, it would be held to have been rendered illegally and without jurisdiction. However, we are of the opinion that the interest of justice shall be sub-served if while allowing these appeals and setting aside the judgments of the High Court, the trial court is requested to dispose of the matters at an early date preferably within six months from the date of communication of this order, subject, of course, to rendition of all cooperation of the Respondents herein. In the event, the trial is not completed within the aforementioned period, it would be open to the Respondents to approach the High Court again. These appeals are disposed of with the aforementioned directions. No costs. - S.B. Sinha and R.V. Raveendran, JJ. For Appellant: A. Sharan, Additional Solicitor General, Binu Tamta, Amit Anand Tiwariand P. Parmeswaran, Advs. For Respondents: Basava Prabha S. Patil, A.S. Bhasme, B. Subramanya Prasad, Naveen R. Nath, Lalit Mohini Bhat, Anitha Shenoy, Hetu Aroraand Dasrath, Advs. JUDGMENT S.B. Sinha, J. 1. Interpretation of Section 300 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short the Code ) is in question in these appeals which ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed 1.6.1985. She faced a full-fledged trial. She was examined under Section 313 of the Code and also laid defence evidence. The question as regard sanction accorded by the Managing Director of the Bank was raised by the Respondent herein before the learned XXI Addl. City Civil and Sessions and Special Judge, Bangalore, contending that only the Board of Directors was the competent authority therefore. By a judgment and order dated 14.11.1991, the learned XXI Addl. City Civil and Sessions and Special Judge while accepting the said plea directed: The sanction order (Ex. P28) is invalid. The sanctioning authority was not competent to issue the said sanction order. Further proceedings of the case is stopped and the accused is released. The Bail bond of the accused is cancelled.... 8. A second chargesheet was filed after years on 18.8.1995 on the ground that as the Respondent has been dismissed from the service, no sanction was required for her prosecution. Cognizance was taken by an order dated 31.8.2001. The Respondent herein filed an application under Section 482 of the Code for quashing the criminal proceedings as also the said order dated 31.8.2001. 9. The High Court allowed the fir ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... except with the previous sanction by the authorities specified therein. 15. Ordinarily, the question as to whether a proper sanction has been accorded for prosecution of the accused persons or not is a matter which should be dealt with at the stage of taking cognizance. But in a case of this nature where a question is raised as to whether the authority granting the sanction was competent therefore or not, at the stage of final arguments after trial, the same may have to be considered having regard to the terms and conditions of service of the accused for the purpose of determination as to who could remove him from service. 16. Grant of proper sanction by a competent authority is a sine qua non for taking cognizance of the offence. It is desirable that the question as regard sanction may be determined at an early stage. [See Ashok Sahu v. Gokul Saikia and Anr., and Birendra K. Singh v. State of Bihar, (2000)8SCC498 ] 17. But, even if a cognizance of the offence is taken erroneously and the same comes to the court's notice at a later stage a finding to that effect is permissible. Even such a plea can be taken for the first time before an appellate court. [See B. Saha and Ors. v. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nal Code resulted in conviction but an appeal therefrom was accepted on the ground that no sanction for the prosecution of the Appellant was accorded therefore. The police prosecuted the Appellant again after obtaining fresh sanction whereupon a plea of bar thereto in terms of Section 403 of the Code was raised. Mahajan, J. speaking for a Division Bench opined: We are satisfied that the learned Sessions Judge was right in the view he took. Section 403, Cr.P.C. applies to cases where the acquittal order has been made by a court of competent jurisdiction but it does not bar a retrial of the accused in cases where such an order has been made by a court which had no jurisdiction to take cognizance of the case. It is quite apparent on this record that in the absence of a valid sanction the trial of the appellant in the first instance was by a magistrate who had no jurisdiction to try him. 23. The aforementioned cases were noticed by a Constitution Bench of this Court in Baij Nath Prasad Tripathi (supra) wherein a similar plea was repelled stating: The Privy Council decision is directly in point, and it was there held that the whole basis of Section 403(1)was that the first trial should ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... iced hereinbefore that even if a judgment of conviction or acquittal was recorded, the same would not make any distinction for the purpose of invoking the provisions of Section 300 of the Code as even then, it would be held to have been rendered illegally and without jurisdiction. 27. The learned counsel for the Respondent next contended that having regard to the fact that the Respondents herein have faced ordeal of trial for a long time, it would not be in the interest of justice to put them on trial once over. In this behalf he relied on the decision of this Court in State of Madhya Pradesh v. Bhooraji and Ors. 2001CriLJ4228 wherein it is observed that fresh trial should be ordered only in exceptional cases of 'failure of justice'. In Bhooraji (supra), the specified court being a Sessions Court took cognizance of the offence under the SC ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act without the case being committed to it. It convicted and sentenced the accused. During pendency of appeal by the accused before High Court, this court took the view that committal proceedings are necessary for a specified court, to take cognizance of offences to be tried under the Act. The High Court, the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ckly as possible in the circumstances. The right to speedy trial encompasses all the stages, namely, stage of investigation, enquiry, trial, appeal, revision and retrial. While determining the alleged delay, the court has to decide each case on its facts having regard to all attending circumstances including nature of offence, number of accused and witnesses, the workload of the court concerned, prevailing local conditions etc. Every delay may not be taken as causing prejudice to the accused but the alleged delay has to be considered in the totality of the circumstances and the general conspectus of the case. Inordinate long delay can be taken as a preventive proof of prejudice. 30. In that case, however, the prosecution had miserably failed to explain the delay of more than 13 years in granting the sanction for prosecution of the Appellant therein of possessing disproportionate wealth of about ₹ 50,600/-. The State was also not satisfied about the merit of the case and the authorities were convinced that despite granting of sanction the trial would be a mere formality and an exercise in futility. 31. Yet again in P. Ramachandra Rao v. State of Karnataka 2002CriLJ2547 this Co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
