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

Kalicharan Mahapatra v. State of Orissa AIR 1998 SC 2595; (1998) 6 SCC 411

By

 Kalicharan Mahapatra v. State of Orissa, AIR 1998 

Criminal Appeal No. 261 of 2022
(Arising out of SLP (Criminal) No. 7182 of 2019)


Facts

A case was registered against the appellant, an IPS officer, under various sections of the IPC and the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
Later the appellant retired from the service but the investigation into the case continued. The chargesheet was filed after two years of his retirement. Therefore the appellant contended that a retired public servant isn't included in the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

Issue

  1. Whether a retired public servant is included within the meaning of public servant under PCA and whether can he be prosecuted under S-19.PCA.

Contentions-

  1. Unlike section 197 of CrPC, S-2(c) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, defining public servant, does not include the words "any person who is or was... a public servant", thus a person who ceased to be a Public Servant does not come within the ambit of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
  2. S.19(1) provides for a previous sanction of the Central Government, State Government or any authority competent to remove the public servant before a Court could take cognizance of the offence. A person who ceased to be a PS cannot be removed from any office, hence he can't be prosecuted for any offence.

Ratio Decidendi 

  1. Provisions of Prevention of Corruption Act,1988 does not indicate that an offence committed under the Act would vanish from penal liability at the moment he demits his office as a Public Servant.
  2. It would lead to the absurd position that any Public Servant could commit the offences under the Act soon before retiring or that when a Public Servant is prosecuted he can ensure an escape by protracting the trial till the date of superannuation.
  3. S.19 is in para-material (of the same nature) as S.6 of the old Corruption Act of 1947.
  4. The sanction contemplated in S.197 of CrPC concerns a public servant who is accused of any offence alleged to have been committed by him while acting or purporting to act in the discharge of his official duties", whereas the offences contemplated in the PCA are those which can not be treated as acts either directly or even purportedly done in the discharge of his official duty.
  5. The Constitution Bench in K. Veeraswami v. Union of India, 1991 upheld the view that no sanction is required to prosecute a public servant after retirement.

Decisions

  1. Dismissed appeal
  2. A Public Servant who ceased to be in office is also liable for his criminal act committed under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Public servants can be prosecuted after their retirement.
  3. If the accused ceases to be a public servant, there is no need to take previous sanction under section 19 of the Act. The Court can take cognizance of the offence without any such sanction.

Also Read:- Kanwarjit Singh Kakkar Case, 2011

Also Read:- K Santhamma v. State of Telangana

Relevant Questions

  1. Define 'Public Servant' and illegal gratification under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. (DU LLB 3rd Sem, 2017)
  1. Define the border of 'Public servant' and 'illegal gratification' with references to the law let down in Kali Charan Mahapatra v. State of Orissa, AIR 1998 SC 2595. (DU LLB 3rd Sem, 2018)
  1. A raid was conducted at the residence of a police officer on 12/05/1990 and good amount of cash and jewellery were recovered. The chargesheet under the Prevention of Corruption Act 1988 was submitted after the retirement of the acussed officer. Whether the sanction is required to prosecute the accused police officer. Discuss with the relevant provisions and supporting cases. (DU LLB 3rd Sem, 2019)


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