1992 (8) TMI 289 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues:
1. Refusal of sanction for prosecution by Revenue Commissioner.
2. Reopening of the case by Deputy Inspector General of Police (Vigilance).
3. Grant of sanction for prosecution by Revenue Commissioner.
4. Challenge to criminal prosecution on procedural grounds.
5. Quashing of prosecution by the Supreme Court.

Analysis:
1. The appellant, a Circle Inspector in the Revenue Department of Bihar, was accused of demanding a bribe. Despite recovery of currency notes, the Public Prosecutor opined that the case was not fit for prosecution. The Revenue Commissioner initially refused to grant sanction for prosecution based on the Public Prosecutor's opinion.
2. The Deputy Inspector General of Police (Vigilance) requested the Revenue Commissioner to reconsider the prosecution of the appellant. The Public Prosecutor reiterated the unsuitability of criminal prosecution but suggested departmental action. Despite this, the Revenue Commissioner granted sanction for prosecution.
3. The Special Judge (Vigilance) took cognizance of the case, leading the appellant to approach the High Court seeking to quash the criminal proceedings. The High Court dismissed the application, prompting the appellant to challenge the prosecution on the grounds of lack of jurisdiction and procedural irregularities.
4. The Supreme Court, while acknowledging the legal points raised, decided to quash the prosecution based on the unique circumstances of the case. The prolonged delay in taking action, consistent opinions of the Public Prosecutor, and the Revenue Commissioner's change in view without affording the appellant an opportunity for hearing were considered. The Court deemed it unjust to continue the prosecution after thirteen years, leading to the quashing of the proceedings before the Special Judge.
5. Ultimately, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, quashing the pending prosecution against the appellant and the proceedings before the Special Judge (Vigilance South Bihar), Patna, citing the potential for further unjust delays and the lack of a strong criminal case against the appellant.