9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2011 (3) TMI 1490 - SC - Indian LawsDischarge from the criminal case pursuant to a charge sheet filed in the Court of the Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge, Thrissur, by the Vigilance Police Department dismissed - Held that - Appeal allowed. the orders passed by the Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge, Thrissur dated 29.08.2009 in CMP No 2933 of 2008 and CC No. 31 of 2005 and order of the High Court dated 12.07.2010 in Crl. RP No. 1606 of 2010 are set aside, consequently, the appellant is discharged from all the allegations leveled against him. With the abundant materials and in view of the non-compliance of statutory provisions mentioned above, we accept the claim of the appellant.
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the prosecution against the appellant can proceed without the previous sanction of the Syndicate of the University as required under Section 50(2) of the Sree Sankaracharya University of Sanskrit Act, 1994. 2. The merit of the allegations against the appellant and whether the appellant acted in good faith. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Prosecution Without Previous Sanction: The primary issue was whether the prosecution could proceed without the previous sanction of the Syndicate of the University as mandated by Section 50(2) of the Sree Sankaracharya University of Sanskrit Act, 1994. The relevant provision reads: "No suit, prosecution or other proceedings shall lie against any officer or other employee of the University for any act done or purported to have been done under this Act, or the Statutes or the Ordinances or the Regulations without the previous sanction of the Syndicate." The court highlighted that the appellant, being the Vice-Chancellor, is considered an officer of the University under Section 23 of the Act. Therefore, any prosecution against him required the previous sanction of the Syndicate, which was not obtained in this case. The court emphasized that the use of the word "shall" in the provision indicates that obtaining the previous sanction is a mandatory pre-condition. The absence of such sanction invalidates the prosecution. 2. Merit of Allegations and Good Faith: The second issue addressed the merit of the allegations against the appellant and whether he acted in good faith. The appellant was accused of irregularities in filling earth on the land acquired for the University, allegedly causing a wrongful loss of Rs. 2,68,358/-. However, the court noted that the FIR initially mentioned a pecuniary loss of Rs. 59,51,543/-, which was significantly reduced in the charge sheet. The court also observed that the prosecution was initiated after an undue delay of eight and a half years, and the charge sheet was filed without the previous sanction of the Syndicate. Furthermore, the Government of Kerala, in a communication dated 03.04.2006, acknowledged that the appellant acted in good faith and directed the withdrawal of the cases against him. The court noted that the appellant had consulted experts and followed due procedures, including accepting the lowest tender, which was below the amount prescribed by the competent PWD officer. The court concluded that the appellant's actions were in good faith and aimed at the speedy establishment of the University. The court also criticized the prosecution for not following up on the Government's decision to withdraw the cases and for the lack of clarity and consistency in the allegations. Conclusion: The court held that the prosecution could not proceed without the previous sanction of the Syndicate, as required under Section 50(2) of the Act. Additionally, the court found that the appellant acted in good faith and that the allegations lacked merit. Consequently, the orders of the Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge, Thrissur, and the High Court were set aside, and the appellant was discharged from all allegations. The appeal was allowed.
|
