Must Read

Gulshan Prakash v. State of Haryana (2010) 1 SCC477

By
Image
Gulshan Prakash v. State of Haryana (2010) 1 SCC 477||Case Summary  Introduction  In this appeal, the Court has interpreted Article 15(4) of the Fundamental Right. It has been added by the 1st Amendment Act, of 1951. Facts The State of Haryana instructed Maharshi Dayanand University (MDU), Rohtak to conduct entrance examination for MD/MS/PG courses for the Session 2008-2009. The appellant made a representation to the Health Secretary for providing reservation for SC and ST in the Post Graduate courses, Since there was no response from the Health Secretary the Appellant filed a petition in the High Court.  The High Court dismissed the petition of the appellant therefore the appellant approached the Supreme Court by Special Leave Petition under Article 136. Appellant Contentions  MDU, Rohtak has provided 20% reservation for the graduate level courses or undergraduate courses therefore the said University should also provide reservation in for the PG courses.  The Government o
Post a Comment

Abhay Singh Chautala v. C.B.I (2011) 7 SCC 141

By

 Abhay Singh Chautala vs. C.B.I

Hon'ble Judges/Coram: V.S. Sirpurkar and T.S. Thakur, JJ.

Introduction 

A very interesting and famous case under the Prevention of Corruption Act 1988, where several charges under the Act were made on a political person who had represented various constituencies in the Lok Sabha and Legislative Assembly of States. The objection raised here by the appellants were over the previous sanction required by the Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 before taking cognizance of offence by the court.

Facts

On the order of a Writ Petition No. 93 of 2003, while investigating the JBT Teachers recruitment scam the CBI conducted searches and seized incriminating documents which revealed that Shri Om Prakash Chautala and his family had amassed wealth more than from his known sources of income. A regular FIR had been filed against Om Prakash Chautala and his family. It is found in the investigation that Abhay Singh Chautala and Ajay Singh Chautala had amassed wealth much more than from his known sources of income while being in office as MP and MLA of different constituencies. Therefore the CBI had filed a charge sheet against the appellants under Prevention of Corruption Act 1988. An objection regarding the absence of sanction under section 19 of the Act was raised before the Special Judge CBI, who held that since the allegations were not made for his current office, there is no need to take a previous sanction under S.19. The High court also dismissed the challenge petition made under section 482 CrPC. Therefore these two Special Leave Petitions came before this court (Supreme Court). 

Contentions of the Appellant

  1. The appellants were a public servant on the day when charges were framed. Thus, the cognizance of the offences under PCA, could not be taken by a Court in the absence of a sanction.
  2. Judgement of this Court in Prakash Singh Badal case (2007) and RS Nayak v. A.R. Antulay (1984) were incorrect and required reconsideration.
  3. Decisions in RS Nayak v. A.R. Antulay (1984) were not right as-
    1. It didn't consider the plain language of Section 19.
    2. It concluded that the MLA is not a public servant.
    3. The proviso added to the section 19 as an effect of this case, would be impermissible as it would negate the foundation of criminal law.
  4. Section 19(1) mentions two terms i.e. "public servant" and  "person". "Public office" should mean the past office and "person" should mean the present office.
  5. S.2(vi),(vii),(vii),(ix),(x) talks about such public servant who hold their office for a limited time. 

Ratio Decidendi

  1. The decision of RS Nayak v. A.R. Antulay (1984) has stood the test of time for over 25 years. So there is no need to reconsider.
  2. The Act do not contemplates of such public servant who holds an office different from the office during which the offence has been committed.
  3. This Court in Antulay's case held that there is no need to have a sanction for prosecuting such public servant who is holding an office different from the office that had been abused by him previously.
  4. The suggested proviso contemplates a different"post" and not the "office".
  5. Section 19 contemplates, in its literal meaning, a person who continues to be a public servant on the date of taking cognizance. However, the court interprets by necessary implication as it excludes such public servant who had abused previous office other than present office on the date of taking cognizance. Therefore literally interpretation of the section would lead to absurdity.
  6. S.19(1)(a),(b),(c) mention "person" which means the accused who is employed as an public servant. Whereas the main body of S.19(1) mentions "public servant" because the offence had been committed by him means while being in that office as a public servant.
  7. S.19 is very clear that no requirement of such sanction is necessary if the accused is not a public servant at the time of trial.
  8. Also, S.19(2) is also very clear on non requirement of sanction for those accused public servant who held various offices.

Decisions

  1. Dismissed appeal
  2. No sanction is required where the accused had held plurality of offices as a public servant.

Conclusion

Although S.19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1988 provides for a previous sanction necessary from the appointing authority of the public servant, it doesn't include such public servant who holds plurality of offices as a public servant. S.19(2) also provides for such sanction not be required where a doubt arises regarding the appointing authority. 

Summary

The apex court in a SLP dismissed the contentions made by the appellant regarding the requirement of sanction under S.19(1) of PCA before taking cognizance of the offences. The Court held that such sanction under S.19(1) is not required to prosecute a public servant who holds various offices.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular Post

Ashbury Railway Carriage and Iron Co. Ltd. v. Riche (1875)

By
Image
Ashbury railway carriage v riche|| Case Summary  Introduction   This case is related to the " Doctrine of Ultra Vires". In this case, the directors of the appellant company made an agreement with the plaintiff which was beyond the objectives, as mentioned in its MoA, of the appellant Company. Since the agreement was beyond its objectives, the appellant company repudiated the agreement later. Therefore the suit was brought by the plaintiff to recover the damages. Facts   The directors of the appellant company (Ashbury Railway Carriage) had contracted to obtain a concession from Gillon and Poeters Baerston, who obtained this right from the Belgian Government, to make a railway.  For this purpose, the directors of the appellant company again entered into a contract with Riche, a contractor, the purpose of which was to establish a société anonyme,  and as the plaintiff went on with the work, the appellant company had to pay into the hands of société anonyme,  Earlier the sharehol
Read more

Workmen of Dimakuchi Tea Estate v. Dimakuchi Tea Estate, AIR 1958 SC 353

By
Image
Workmen of Dimakuchi Tea Estate v. Dimakuchi Tea Estate, AIR 1958 SC 353 Case Summary Introduction The case of Workmen of Dimakuchi Tea Estate v. Dimakuchi Tea Estate involved a dispute between the management of the Dimakuchi Tea Estate and its workers. This case has discussed and cleared the meaning of the expression "any person" used in S.2(K) of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947. The Supreme Court ruled in favour of a limited interpretation of the term "any person" thereby excluding the present appellant from the ambit of the Industrial Disputes Act of 1947. This decision denied the jurisdiction of the Industrial Tribunal to adjudicate the dispute and extended the benefits and protections of the Act to the employers. Facts of the Case The dispute was raised over the termination of the service of Dr K.P. Banerjee, who was appointed as an Assistant Medical Officer in the Respondent's estate (Dimakuchi Tea Estate), on the grounds of being incompetent. Although th
Read more