9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2020 (9) TMI 1150 - SC - Indian LawsSanction under Section 197 Cr.P.C. - Allegation is that is said to be the kingpin involved in this crime and is since absconding - finding that there was a prima facie case made out against the appellant, the Special Judge refused to discharge the appellant from the offences under the IPC - HELD THAT - A number of judgments have held that the standard of proof in a departmental proceeding, being based on preponderance of probability is somewhat lower than the standard of proof in a criminal proceeding where the case has to be proved beyond reasonable doubt. In view of the detailed CVC order dated 22.12.2011, the chances of conviction in a criminal trial involving the same facts appear to be bleak. We, therefore, set aside the judgment of the High Court and that of the Special Judge and discharge the appellant from the offences under the Penal Code. Appeal allowed - decided n favor of appellant.
Issues Involved:
1. Requirement of sanction under the Prevention of Corruption Act and Section 197 Cr.P.C. 2. Role and culpability of the appellant in the alleged crime. 3. Relevance and impact of the Central Vigilance Commission (CVC) report. 4. Standard of proof in departmental proceedings versus criminal proceedings. 5. Applicability of precedents regarding exoneration in departmental proceedings affecting criminal prosecution. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Requirement of Sanction: The Special Judge, CBI (ACB), Pune, found that no sanction was taken under the Prevention of Corruption Act, and therefore, the offences under that Act could not proceed against the appellant. However, the judge concluded that there was no need for sanction under Section 197 Cr.P.C. in the facts of this case. The High Court agreed with this conclusion, stating that the appellant should be tried for the offence punishable under Section 420 of IPC. 2. Role and Culpability of the Appellant: The appellant was accused of forwarding an email containing RTGS details to Accused No.5 (Muthukumar), who was considered the main perpetrator of the crime. The appellant signed various cheques based on Muthukumar’s approval. The CVC report indicated that the appellant might have been negligent but did not show any criminal culpability. It emphasized that the appellant appeared to be a victim of Muthukumar’s plot. 3. Relevance and Impact of the CVC Report: The CVC report, dated 22.12.2011, was crucial as it detailed the involvement of various individuals, including the appellant. The report suggested that the appellant and another official were victims of Muthukumar’s fraudulent activities. It concluded that there was no need for prosecution sanction against the appellant, recommending only minor procedural and supervisory lapses actions. The High Court, however, brushed aside this report, focusing instead on the need for trial under IPC. 4. Standard of Proof in Departmental vs. Criminal Proceedings: The judgment highlighted that the standard of proof in departmental proceedings is based on the preponderance of probability, which is lower than the standard of proof in criminal proceedings that require proof beyond reasonable doubt. The Court referenced P.S. Rajya vs. State of Bihar and Radheshyam Kejriwal vs. State of West Bengal to emphasize that exoneration in departmental proceedings on merits should influence the criminal prosecution. 5. Applicability of Precedents: The Court referred to previous judgments to establish that if the exoneration in departmental proceedings is on merits, criminal prosecution on the same facts should not continue. It cited the ratio from Radheshyam Kejriwal, which states that exoneration on merits in adjudication proceedings should prevent criminal prosecution on the same facts. Conclusion: The Supreme Court applied the aforementioned judgments to the present case, noting that the detailed CVC report indicated that the appellant's involvement in the crime was unlikely to lead to a conviction in a criminal trial. Consequently, the Court set aside the judgments of the High Court and the Special Judge, discharging the appellant from the offences under the Penal Code. The appeal was disposed of accordingly.
|
