Research › Browse › Judgment

Supreme Court of India · body

2013 DIGILAW 941 (SC)

D. L. Rangotha v. State of Madhya Pradesh

2013-08-21

KURIAN JOSEPH, SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA

body2013
ORDER : Criminal Appeal No. 1213 of 2013 @ S.L.P. (Crl.) No. 4155 of 2009: 1. Leave granted. 2. This appeal has been preferred by the appellant Mr. D.L. Rangotha, against Order dated 02.02.2009 passed by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh in Criminal Revision No. 165 of 2005. By the impugned order learned Single Judge of the High Court dismissed the Revision Application and affirmed the Order dated 27.12.2004 passed by the Special Judge, Lokayukta in Criminal Case No. 12 of 2004. 3. While in service, the appellant was prosecuted under Sections 13(1)(a) and 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"). Subsequently he retired. Before the trial court the appellant filed an application under Section 13 of the Act for his discharge on the ground that the State Government has not given sanction under Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to Lokayukta, Ujjain (Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988) for filing criminal case against the appellant. It has brought to notice of the Court that on the floor of the House, the State Government has given a reply that the appellant has not committed any offence while functioning as Commissioner, Nagar Palika, Ujjain. There was no loss to the Municipal Corporation, Ujjain. So it was contended that, in absence of any sanction given by the State Government, prosecution filed by the respondent deserves to be dismissed. 4. It was further contended that the appellant had retired from service and that no charge sheet can be filed without challenging the order of the State Government refusing to grant sanction against the appellant. 5. On behalf of the State of Madhya Pradesh, while accepting that the appellant had retired on the date when challan was filed, it was contended that the filing of the challan against the appellant was not illegal. In view of the stand taken by the respondent, the application was dismissed. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant relied upon a judgment of this Court in the case of Chittaranjan Das v. State of Orissa reported in (2011) 7 SCC 167 in which this Court has observed as follows: "14. In view of the stand taken by the respondent, the application was dismissed. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant relied upon a judgment of this Court in the case of Chittaranjan Das v. State of Orissa reported in (2011) 7 SCC 167 in which this Court has observed as follows: "14. We are of the opinion that in a case in which sanction sought for is refused by the competent authority, while the public servant is in service, he cannot be prosecuted later after retirement, notwithstanding the fact that no sanction for prosecution under the Prevention of Corruption Act is necessary after the retirement of the public servant. Any other view will render the protection illusory. Situation may be different when sanction is refused by the competent authority after the retirement of the public servant as in that case sanction is not at all necessary and any exercise in this regard would be action in futility." 7. Ms. Aishwarya Bhati, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent-State, accepts that case of the appellant is covered by the decision of this Court in 'Chittaranjan Das' (supra) having regards to the fact that while the appellant was in service, the competent authority had rejected the request for sanction and now the appellant has retired from services of the State. 8. In view of the judgment rendered by this Court in 'Chittaranjan Das' (supra), we are of the view that the respondent cannot prosecute the appellant. 9. In the result, the appeal is allowed and Order dated 27.12.2004 passed by the Special Judge, Lokayukta in Criminal Case No. 12 of 2004 and the Order of the High Court dated 02.02.2009 in Criminal Revision No. 165 of 2005, so far as the appellant is concerned, are quashed. The prosecution against the appellant in connection with the said proceeding is also quashed. Criminal Appeal No. 1214 of 2013 @ S.L.P. (Crl.) No. 31 of 2012: 10. Leave granted. 11. The facts in this case are similar to the facts in Criminal Appeal No. 1213 of 2013. In view of our order passed today in Criminal Appeal No. 1213 of 2013, this appeal is allowed with similar observation. S.L.P.(Crl.) No. 9999 of 2011: 12. Leave granted. 11. The facts in this case are similar to the facts in Criminal Appeal No. 1213 of 2013. In view of our order passed today in Criminal Appeal No. 1213 of 2013, this appeal is allowed with similar observation. S.L.P.(Crl.) No. 9999 of 2011: 12. The petitioner, prosecuted under Sections 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, challenged the proceedings on one of the grounds that no sanction has been granted in cases of two accused, who were the controlling officers of the petitioner. During the course of argument, it is brought to our notice that the Standing Committee of Ujjain Municipal Corporation by its Resolution No. 309 dated 27.8.1996 (Annexure P-2) resolved that as per the recommendation of the Municipal Corporation, sanction is granted to prosecute the officers concerned. The Learned counsel for the petitioner referred to Resolution No. 92 of the Standing Committee dated 14.02.1997 adopted subsequently by the Standing Committee of Ujjain Municipal Corporation whereby taking into consideration the opinion given by the State Government by its letter dated 17.12.1996, the Standing Committee agreed with the opinion and held that no prosecution be initiated against the petitioner. It is contended that in view of the subsequent Resolution dated 14.02.1997 the earlier sanction of the prosecution stands withdrawn. 13. The Learned counsel for the petitioner could not lay hand on any of the provision under which the competent authority can withdraw the sanction once granted under Section 19(1)(c) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Admittedly, the petitioner is an employee of Ujjain Municipal Corporation, Ujjain. The sanction has been granted by the Standing Committee but it has not been made clear that who is the appointing authority, i.e., the competent authority to grant sanction. Therefore, on the basis of the record, it is not possible to come to a conclusion whether the Standing Committee was a competent authority to grant sanction or not. 14. Learned counsel for the writ-petitioner/appellant submits that the sanction was granted without application of mind and without taking into consideration the fact that in case of the superior officers it was refused. However, we find that in case of the superior officer, Mr. D.L. Rangotha, Commissioner of Municipal Corporation, Ujjain, the State Government refused to grant sanction on 12.03.1999 and in the case of Mr. However, we find that in case of the superior officer, Mr. D.L. Rangotha, Commissioner of Municipal Corporation, Ujjain, the State Government refused to grant sanction on 12.03.1999 and in the case of Mr. D.P. Tiwari, Administrator of the State Municipal Corporation, the Central Government refused to grant sanction on 17.02.2000. A Public Interest Litigation - Writ Petition (Civil) No. 473 of 1997 appears to have been preferred against the order of withdrawal of the sanction dated 14.02.1997, in which, the order of withdrawal of the sanction was quashed by order dated 11.09.1997. (see pp. 108-109). 15. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner sought for and is granted one week time to file additional documents, if any. 16. Post the matter after two weeks. S.L.P.(Crl.) No. 4155/2009 and S.L.P.(Crl.) No. 31 of 2012: 17. Leave granted. 18. The appeals are allowed in terms of the signed order.