2005 (10) TMI 594 - SC - Indian Laws

Interpretation of Section 300 of the CrPC - Demand for illegal gratification - cognizance of an offence u/s 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 ( the Act ) - Validity of sanction obtained - HC allowed the first application, when an accused faces a full-fledged trial, having regard to the provisions of the Code, the Trial Court must either record a judgment of conviction or acquittal and the accused cannot be discharged in terms of Section 227 of the Code after a full-fledged trial - In the second matter, the High Court was of the opinion that no fresh trial is permissible in law - HELD THAT - It is not possible to agree with the decision of the High Court that the Trial Court was bound to record either a judgment of conviction or acquittal, even after holding that the sanction was not valid. We have noticed 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. 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.

Issues Involved:
1. Interpretation of Section 300 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
2. Validity of sanction orders in corruption and misappropriation cases.
3. Competence of the authority granting sanction.
4. Double jeopardy and retrial under Section 300 of the Code.
5. Right to a speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Interpretation of Section 300 of the Code of Criminal Procedure:
The Supreme Court examined the interpretation of Section 300 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which deals with the principle of double jeopardy. It was noted that Section 300(1) states, "A person who has once been tried by a Court of competent jurisdiction for an offence and convicted or acquitted of such offence shall, while such conviction or acquittal remains in force, not be liable to be tried again for the same offence." The Court emphasized that the essential conditions for invoking this bar are that the court had requisite jurisdiction to take cognizance and tried the accused, and the court recorded an order of conviction or acquittal.

2. Validity of Sanction Orders in Corruption and Misappropriation Cases:
The Court addressed the issue of whether the sanction orders for prosecution were valid. In the first case, the learned Special Judge found the sanction accorded for prosecution to be invalid, leading to the discharge of the accused. Similarly, in the second case, the sanction order was deemed invalid as it was not issued by the competent authority. The Court reiterated that the grant of proper sanction by a competent authority is a sine qua non for taking cognizance of the offence.

3. Competence of the Authority Granting Sanction:
The Court examined whether the authorities granting the sanctions were competent. It was highlighted that the competence of the authority granting the sanction must be determined based on the terms and conditions of service of the accused. The Court referred to various precedents, including Ashok Sahu v. Gokul Saikia and Anr., and Birendra K. Singh v. State of Bihar, to emphasize that the question of sanction should ideally be determined at an early stage.

4. Double Jeopardy and Retrial under Section 300 of the Code:
The Court discussed the principle of double jeopardy under Clause (2) of Article 20 of the Constitution of India and Section 300 of the Code. It was noted that if a proceeding is initiated without a valid sanction, it is null and void, and a subsequent trial with proper sanction is not barred. The Court cited several cases, including Baij Nath Prasad Tripathi v. the State of Bhopal and Mohammad Safi v. The State of West Bengal, to support this view. The Court concluded that even if a judgment of conviction or acquittal was recorded without proper sanction, it would be rendered illegally and without jurisdiction, thus not invoking the bar under Section 300.

5. Right to a Speedy Trial under Article 21 of the Constitution:
The Court acknowledged the respondents' right to a speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution, which encompasses all stages of the criminal process, including investigation, enquiry, trial, appeal, revision, and retrial. The Court referred to Mahendra Lal Das v. State of Bihar and Ors. and P. Ramachandra Rao v. State of Karnataka, emphasizing that no period of limitation can be prescribed for the conclusion of a criminal case. However, the Court also noted that inordinate delay could be considered prejudicial to the accused.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court allowed the appeals, setting aside the judgments of the High Court, and directed the trial court to dispose of the matters within six months, subject to the respondents' cooperation. The Court held that if the trial is not completed within the specified period, the respondents may approach the High Court again. The appeals were disposed of with no costs.

← Previous Next →