2021 (11) TMI 1085 - HC - Indian Laws

Violation of the statutory stipulations contained in Section 15(A) of Essential Commodities Act, 1995 - petitioners contends that as per Section 15(A) of Essential Commodities Act, no court can take cognizance against a public servant for the offences punishable under the Act except with the previous sanction of the State Government - HELD THAT - The contents of the order should reflect the materials considered by the authority for the purpose of deciding the necessity for granting sanction for prosecution of the public servant. Without highlighting any reason and without any indication as to the documents perused, no order of sanction should be passed. In this case, the order granting sanction was without any such observations and materials. From both the documents produced by the learned Government Pleader, it is evident that it was decided not to proceed against the petitioners herein. As the prosecution against the petitioners herein are permissible only on the basis of sanction, the decision now taken by the respondents; not to proceed against them is having some relevance. In the light of the communications produced by the learned Government Pleader, it is evident that the Government is not intending to proceed against the petitioners herein. In such circumstances, further proceedings against the petitioners herein is an abuse of process of law. The chances of successful prosecution as against the petitioners herein are very bleak in the light of the above aspects. In such circumstances, it is only just and proper that the proceedings against the petitioners herein are to be quashed by invoking powers of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Application allowed.

Summary

Issues:
Violation of statutory stipulations in prosecution under Essential Commodities Act, 1995; Improper sanction for prosecution of public servants.

Analysis:
The judgment involves two main issues. The first issue pertains to the violation of statutory stipulations in the prosecution under the Essential Commodities Act, 1995. The petitioners, accused in the case, argued that the final report submitted against them was an abuse of the legal process due to the lack of compliance with Section 15(A) of the Act. The section mandates that no court can take cognizance against a public servant for offenses under the Act without prior sanction from the State Government. The petitioners contended that no sanction was obtained for the 1st petitioner, who was a public servant at the time of the alleged offense, rendering the prosecution against him invalid. The court agreed with this argument, citing the necessity of sanction even for public servants who retired subsequently, as per Section 15(A). The judgment also referenced a previous Supreme Court decision to support this interpretation.

The second issue revolves around the improper sanction for the prosecution of the 2nd petitioner, another public servant involved in the case. The petitioners raised concerns about the lack of reasons stated in the sanction order, emphasizing that the grant of sanction is not a mere formality but a crucial step to protect public servants from unwarranted criminal prosecution. The court agreed with this contention, citing previous Supreme Court judgments that stressed the importance of providing specific reasons for granting sanction. The judgment highlighted the need for the authority granting sanction to consider the evidence and arrive at a subjective satisfaction before issuing the sanction. In this case, the court found that the sanction order lacked essential reasons and did not reflect a proper examination of the relevant materials.

Furthermore, the judgment considered additional communications produced by the Government Pleader, indicating a decision not to proceed against the petitioners. Based on these communications, the court concluded that further proceedings against the petitioners would be an abuse of the legal process. The court, therefore, invoked its powers under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code to quash the proceedings against the petitioners in the case. The judgment ultimately allowed the criminal miscellaneous case and quashed the proceedings against the petitioners in the trial court.