9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2014 (6) TMI 1059 - HC - Indian LawsConspiracy - Whether the order of sanction is mandatory from the competent authority for filing chargesheet against the petitioner? - Section 19 of the P.C. Act and also Section 197 of Cr.P.C. - HELD THAT - It is settled principle of law that the order of sanction is only an administrative act and not a quasi judicial one. The competent authority can apply its mind on those facts and may pass appropriate orders for sanction of prosecution considering the facts and the prima facie evidence of commission of offence. The competent authority may grant or refuse to grant sanction - Before taking cognizance of the offence it is open to the competent authority to grant sanction and the prosecution is at liberty to produce the order of sanction even during the trial of the case. The emphasis of Section 197 Cr.P.C. that no court shall take cognizance of such offence except with the previous sanction suggests that before taking cognizance of offence alleged prior sanction from the competent authority is required. Before taking cognizance of the offence it is open to the competent authority to grant sanction and the prosecution is at liberty to produce the order of sanction even during the trial of the case - When where court proceeds against public servant without sanction he can raise the issue of jurisdiction of court. Sanction can be obtained even during trial depending upon facts of individual case. In that view of the matter the respondent investigating agency is competent to file chargesheet even without obtaining prior sanction from the competent authority. Therefore the first issue is answered against the petitioner. Whether any prima facie case is made out against the petitioner as per the material placed by the prosecution agency warranting interference of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C.? - HELD THAT - It is also settled law that no hard-and-fast rule can be laid down and each case has to be considered on its own merits. The Court while exercising its inherent jurisdiction although would not interfere with a genuine complaint keeping in view the purport and object for which the provisions of Section 482 and 483 of the Code of Criminal Procedure had been introduced by Parliament but would not hesitate to exercise its jurisdiction in appropriate cases. One of the paramount duties of the superior courts is to see that a person who is apparently innocent is not subjected to prosecution and humiliation on the basis of a false and wholly untenable complaint - In the instant case APIIC is the nodal agency with regard to allotment and fixation of price of land and the fact that the petitioner being the Secretary of the IT and C Department even according to the material placed by the prosecution is head of the Department only to process the application received by the department pursuant to the decision taken by the Government and also in view of the meetings conducted by the then Chief Minister. In the instant case APIIC is the nodal agency with regard to allotment and fixation of price of land and the fact that the petitioner being the Secretary of the IT and C Department even according to the material placed by the prosecution is head of the Department only to process the application received by the department pursuant to the decision taken by the Government and also in view of the meetings conducted by the then Chief Minister - the petitioner has not taken any independent decision in allotment of land or to fixation of price of land. Even otherwise the charge sheet or the material does not disclose any criminal offence at all much less an offence either under Section 420 or Section 120-B IPC and 409. From the counter averments and also the contents of the charge sheet itself the respondent investigation authority categorically stated that it is the APIIC which is the nodal agency for allotment of land and fixation of land value; and that after receiving the applications from three companies note was sent by the APIIC pursuant to the decision of the Government vide G.O.Ms.No.11 inviting applications from the companies for establishment of IT companies that the APIIC which was authorised in that behalf pursuant to the recommendations of the CCITI has forwarded the file after stating that the Government after careful consideration has short listed some companies for Hyderabad and Visakhapatnam and also stated in the note file that information furnished by the company satisfied the requirement as fixed by the Government whereupon the note was processed and sent to the Law Secretary Finance Revenue and Chief Secretary and that taking into consideration the opinion of the Chief Secretary and thus the file passed through various phases - Since no ingredient under Section 120-B and 409 have been made out so also the ingredients of Section 420 IPC therefore there is no reasons as to why the petitioner must be made to undergo the agony of a criminal trial. On perusal of material produced by the prosecution itself are inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground to proceed against the petitioner; that allegations made in the charge sheet and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose commission of any offence alleged against the petitioner. Therefore allowing the proceedings to continue against the petitioner would also amount to an abuse of the process of court. Hence the cognizance of offence and the chargesheet filed insofar as the petitioner is liable to be quashed in order to meet the ends of justice. Petition allowed.
Issues Involved:
1. Quashing of criminal proceedings under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. 2. Allegations of criminal conspiracy, cheating, and criminal breach of trust. 3. Role and responsibilities of the petitioner as a public servant. 4. Requirement of sanction for prosecution under Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act and Section 197 of Cr.P.C. 5. Examination of the policy decisions and their implementation. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Quashing of criminal proceedings under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.: The petitioner sought to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.27 of 2013, alleging that the investigation agency failed to appreciate the distinction between policy decisions and criminal culpability. The court examined whether the allegations made in the charge sheet disclosed any cognizable offence against the petitioner. The court emphasized that the power to quash should be exercised sparingly and only when the allegations are inherently improbable or do not disclose any offence. It was found that the petitioner acted in accordance with the directives of the policy decision and did not take any independent decision that could be construed as criminal. 2. Allegations of criminal conspiracy, cheating, and criminal breach of trust: The charge sheet accused the petitioner of conspiring with others to favor M/s. Indu Projects Ltd. and its associated companies by allotting 250 acres of land at a lower rate. The court analyzed the material placed by the prosecution, including the role of the APIIC as the nodal agency and the approval process involving various departments and the Cabinet. It was noted that the petitioner processed the applications as per the prescribed procedures and did not act unilaterally. The court concluded that the allegations did not prima facie establish the offences of criminal conspiracy, cheating, or criminal breach of trust against the petitioner. 3. Role and responsibilities of the petitioner as a public servant: The petitioner contended that her role was limited to processing the applications and referring them to the APIIC for verification. The court examined the duties and responsibilities of the petitioner and found that she acted within the scope of her official duties. The court noted that the petitioner followed the directives of the policy decision and the recommendations of various departments, including the Chief Secretary, Finance, and Revenue Departments. The court concluded that the petitioner could not be held responsible for any alleged deviations or illegalities in the allotment process. 4. Requirement of sanction for prosecution under Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act and Section 197 of Cr.P.C.: The petitioner argued that the charge sheet was filed without obtaining the necessary sanction from the competent authority, rendering the proceedings vitiated. The court referred to the legal provisions and precedents, emphasizing that sanction is required for prosecuting public servants for acts done in the discharge of their official duties. The court noted that the sanction orders were awaited, and the prosecution could produce the sanction during the trial. However, the court found that the allegations did not disclose any offence requiring sanction, as the petitioner acted in good faith and within the scope of her official duties. 5. Examination of the policy decisions and their implementation: The court examined the policy decisions of the Government of Andhra Pradesh regarding the promotion of the IT industry and the role of the APIIC as the nodal agency. The court noted that the policy aimed to attract IT companies and provide incentives, including land allotment. The court found that the petitioner implemented the policy decisions in accordance with the directives and recommendations of various departments. The court concluded that the investigation agency failed to appreciate the distinction between policy decisions and criminal culpability and that the allegations against the petitioner were unfounded. Conclusion: The court quashed the proceedings in C.C.No.27 of 2013 against the petitioner, finding that the allegations did not disclose any cognizable offence and that the petitioner acted within the scope of her official duties in implementing the policy decisions of the Government of Andhra Pradesh. The court emphasized the need to exercise the power to quash sparingly and only when the allegations are inherently improbable or do not disclose any offence.
|
