1982 (7) TMI 271 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:

1. Non-application of mind in issuing sanctions, complaints, and summoning orders.
2. Permissible use of premises for banking and hostel purposes.
3. Bar of limitation under Section 468(2)(a) Cr. P.C.
4. Requirement of sanction under Section 197 Cr. P.C. for prosecuting public servants.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Non-application of Mind:

The petitioners argued that the sanctions, complaints, and summoning orders were made on pre-prepared cyclostyled papers, indicating non-application of mind. The court rejected this contention, stating that the use of standard forms does not imply non-application of mind. It was observed that the necessary facts filled in the blank spaces indicated proper consideration and application of mind by the sanctioning and complaining authorities and the Magistrate. The court emphasized that using standard forms saves time in handling a large number of similar prosecutions and does not constitute a legal infirmity.

2. Permissible Use of Premises:

The petitioners contended that the premises were being used for permissible purposes under the master plan, such as a hostel or public utility. The court held that such matters require factual investigation by the lower court. It was noted that banking is a commercial activity and cannot be considered a public utility. The court referenced previous judgments, including Indian Bank v. Delhi Development Authority, to support this view. The issue of whether the Staff Training College-cum-Hostel constituted a permissible residential use was left to be determined by the lower court based on evidence.

3. Bar of Limitation:

The petitioners argued that the complaints were barred by limitation under Section 468(2)(a) Cr. P.C. The court examined the relevant provisions, including Section 469(1)(b) Cr. P.C., which states that the period of limitation commences on the first day the offence comes to the knowledge of the person aggrieved. The court held that the Delhi Development Authority (DDA) could be considered the person aggrieved, and the limitation period should be counted from when the sanctioning authority became aware of the offence. Additionally, the court noted that the offence of non-conforming user is a continuing offence under Section 29(2) of the Delhi Development Act, 1957, and thus, the bar of limitation does not apply if the offence continues at the time of taking cognizance. The court also referenced Section 470(3) Cr. P.C., which allows for the exclusion of the period spent in obtaining sanction or giving notice from the limitation period. Consequently, the court found that the prosecutions were within the limitation period.

4. Requirement of Sanction under Section 197 Cr. P.C.:

The petitioners claimed that the Chairmen of the banks were public servants and could not be prosecuted without the sanction of the Central Government under Section 197 Cr. P.C. The court examined the criteria for a public servant under Section 21 of the Indian Penal Code and concluded that the Chairmen did not qualify as public servants. The court reasoned that the banks were "bodies corporate" and not "corporations" established by or under a Central Act. The Chairmen were not in a master-servant relationship with the banks, as they were appointed and removable by the Central Government, not by the banks. The court also noted that the offence was committed by the body corporate (the bank) and not by the Chairmen in their official capacity. Therefore, the requirement of sanction under Section 197 Cr. P.C. did not apply.

Conclusion:

The court dismissed the revision petitions, holding that:

1. The bar of limitation did not apply to the prosecutions.
2. No sanction under Section 197 Cr. P.C. was required for prosecuting the accused.

The judgments were delivered in agreement by both judges, with detailed reasons provided for each conclusion.