9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2016 (8) TMI 501 - SC - Indian LawsOffence under Section 120B IPC - need for previous sanction from the Central Government under Section 197 of CrPC for issuing summons - Held that - For the purpose of obtaining previous sanction from the appropriate government under Section 197 of CrPC, it is imperative that the alleged offence is committed in discharge of official duty by the accused. It is also important for the Court to examine the allegations contained in the final report against the Appellants, to decide whether previous sanction is required to be obtained by the respondent from the appropriate government before taking cognizance of the alleged offence by the learned Special Judge against the accused. In the instant case, since the allegations made against the Appellants in the final report filed by the respondent that the alleged offences were committed by them in discharge of their official duty, therefore, it was essential for the learned Special Judge to correctly decide as to whether the previous sanction from the Central Government under Section 197 of CrPC was required to be taken by the respondent, before taking cognizance and passing an order issuing summons to the appellants for their presence. Thus we set aside the impugned judgment and order of the High Court and quash the proceedings taking cognizance and issuing summons to the appellants by the Special Judge, Anti Corruption (CBI), Ghaziabad, U.P. in absence of previous sanction obtained from the Central Government to prosecute the appellants as required under Section 197 of CrPC
Issues Involved:
1. Whether an offence under Section 120B IPC is made out against the appellants, and if so, whether previous sanction of the Central Government is required to prosecute them for the same? 2. Whether the order dated 08.11.2012 passed by the learned Special Judge taking cognizance of the offence against the appellants is legal and valid? 3. What order? Detailed Analysis: Issue 1: Offence under Section 120B IPC and Requirement of Previous Sanction Arguments by Appellants: - The transaction of transferring the plot to ICPO-ICMR Housing Society was transparent and legally sanctioned by NOIDA. - The CBI withheld the Comptroller and Auditor General (CAG) report. - No prior sanction was obtained from the Central Government under Section 197 CrPC, necessary as the appellants were public servants acting in their official capacity. Arguments by Respondents: - The appellants conspired to transfer the plot illegally for personal gain, without proper authorization from NOIDA. - The acts were not part of their official duties, thus no sanction under Section 197 CrPC was required. Court's Analysis: - The FIR and charge-sheet allege that the appellants conspired to transfer the plot at a lower price, causing undue pecuniary advantage for themselves. - The concept of criminal conspiracy under Section 120-A IPC involves an agreement to commit an illegal act. - Previous sanction under Section 197 CrPC is required if the act is directly connected with the official duties of the public servant. - The court cited several precedents indicating that the requirement of sanction depends on whether the act was done in the discharge of official duties. Conclusion on Issue 1: - The acts complained of were directly connected to the appellants' official duties, thus requiring prior sanction from the Central Government under Section 197 CrPC before prosecution. Issue 2: Legality of the Order Dated 08.11.2012 Arguments by Appellants: - The Special Judge erred in taking cognizance without prior sanction from the Central Government. - The initiation of proceedings without sanction affects the fundamental rights under Articles 14, 19, and 21 of the Constitution of India. Arguments by Respondents: - The illegal acts were not part of the appellants' official duties, thus no sanction was required. - The High Court rightly dismissed the applications under Section 482 CrPC. Court's Analysis: - The court examined the allegations and found that the acts were connected to the appellants' official duties. - The Special Judge should not have taken cognizance without the requisite sanction. Conclusion on Issue 2: - The order dated 08.11.2012 taking cognizance and issuing summons was invalid due to the absence of prior sanction from the Central Government. Issue 3: What Order? Court's Order: - The impugned judgment and order of the High Court dated 27.05.2013 and 07.10.2014 are set aside. - The proceedings taking cognizance and issuing summons to the appellants in Special Case No. 18 of 2012 by the Special Judge, Anti Corruption (CBI), Ghaziabad, are quashed. - The appeals are allowed, and all applications are disposed of. Summary: The Supreme Court quashed the proceedings against the appellants due to the absence of prior sanction from the Central Government as required under Section 197 CrPC. The court held that the acts alleged were connected to the appellants' official duties, necessitating prior sanction for prosecution. The orders of the High Court and the Special Judge were set aside, and the appeals were allowed.
|
