9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (1) TMI 1332 - SC - Indian LawsOffence made out against the appellant under the provisions of Prevention of Corruption Act - Held that - The Magistrate having seen the records and having heard the parties has come to the conclusion that no offence is made out against the appellant under the provisions of the PC Act so as to prosecute him. Even according to the High Court the crux of the matter is the conversation between the complainant and the accused no.1 of 22.11.2010 . That conversation is inaudible and the same is not to be taken in evidence. Therefore once the crux goes the superstructure also falls lacking in legs. Hence prosecution becomes a futile exercise as the materials available do not show that an offence is made out as against the appellant. This part unfortunately the High Court missed. Once the prosecution is of the view that no case is made out so as to prosecute an accused unless the court finds otherwise there is no point in making a request for sanction for prosecution. If the prosecution is simply vexatious sanction for prosecution is not to be granted. That is one of the main considerations to be borne in mind by the competent authority while considering whether the sanction is to be granted or not. In Mansukhlal Vithaldas Chauhan v. State of Gujarat (1997) 7 SCC 622 this Court has in unmistakable terms made it clear that no court can issue a positive direction to an authority to give sanction for prosecution. The High Court exceeded in its jurisdiction in substituting its views and that too without any legal basis. The impugned order is hence set aside. Appeal is allowed.
Issues Involved:
1. Acceptance of the closure report by the Magistrate. 2. High Court's revisional jurisdiction to set aside the Magistrate's order. 3. Direction by the High Court to seek sanction for prosecution. Detailed Analysis: Acceptance of the Closure Report by the Magistrate: The appellant was accused no.1 in a case registered by the Anti-Corruption Bureau under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The genesis of the case was a complaint alleging that the appellant demanded a bribe for issuing a non-agricultural certificate. The complaint led to a trap where the second accused was caught accepting the bribe. The investigating officer submitted a report under Section 173(2) of the Cr.PC, recommending the closure of the case against the appellant due to insufficient evidence. The Magistrate, after considering the records and the de facto complainant's notice, accepted the closure report. The Magistrate noted that the appellant was on medical leave during the alleged incident and that there was no evidence of demand and acceptance of the bribe by the appellant. High Court's Revisional Jurisdiction: The de facto complainant challenged the Magistrate's order in the High Court, which set aside the closure report and directed the Director General of Police to seek sanction for prosecution. The High Court observed that the recorded conversation between the complainant and the appellant prima facie revealed a demand for a bribe. The High Court criticized the legal advisor's opinion and the Special Judge's reliance on it, stating that the Special Judge should have applied his mind independently. The High Court emphasized that the Magistrate should not have ignored the supplementary statement signed by the panch witness and the recorded conversation, despite the forensic report stating that the conversation was inaudible. Direction to Seek Sanction for Prosecution: The Supreme Court analyzed whether the High Court was justified in setting aside the Magistrate's order and directing the investigating officer to seek sanction for prosecution. The Court clarified that the Magistrate's discretion in accepting the closure report should not be interfered with unless the order is perverse or unreasonable. The Court noted that the conversation, which was the crux of the matter, was inaudible and could not be relied upon. Therefore, the High Court's direction to seek sanction for prosecution was unwarranted. The Court emphasized that summoning an accused is a serious matter and should not be done without sufficient material evidence. Conclusion: The Supreme Court held that the High Court exceeded its jurisdiction by substituting its views without any legal basis. The Magistrate's order accepting the closure report was based on a proper application of mind and consideration of the evidence. The High Court's direction to seek sanction for prosecution was set aside, and the appeal was allowed. The process of criminal law should not be used as a weapon of harassment, and unmerited prosecution infringes the guarantee under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
|
