Research › Search › Judgment

Bombay High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 1639 (BOM)

Prashant Balasaheb Shinde v. State Of Maharashtra

2019-07-15

DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU

body2019
JUDGMENT Dama Seshadri Naidu, J. - Facts: The applicant was the Assistant Vehicle Inspector, Regional Transport Division, Kolhapur, under probation. He faced the allegation of venality and was charged with the offence under Sections 7, 13 (1) (D), read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 ( PC Act ). In Special Case No.5 of 2015, the Special Judge (ACB), Gadhinglaj, Kolhapur, convicted the applicant and another accused under Section 8 read with Section 12 of the PC Act. The applicant was sentenced to three years rigorous imprisonment, besides a fine of Rs.15,000/-. 2. The judgment appealed against, this Court, through order dated 3rd May 2019, suspended the sentence and enlarged the applicant on bail. 3. Now, the applicant has filed this Criminal Application to have the conviction suspended. Submissions: Applicant''s: 4. Shri Nitin Gaware, the learned counsel for the applicant, has submitted that the conviction suffers from fatal flaws. According to him, the competent authority granted sanction to the prosecution only to try the applicant for the offences under Sections 8, 10, 12, and 13(2) of the PC Act. But the applicant was convicted under Section 7, which is a distinct offence. He has also submitted that to bring home the applicant''s guilt, the prosecution proved neither demand for nor acceptance of the bribe. According to him, even the investigating officer has admitted in the cross-examination that he could not unearth any material to link the applicant with the second accused. Nor can the prosecution establish any connivance between the two. 5. Shri Gaware has also contended that even the informant has admitted that he had no work pending with the applicant. Eventually, he has submitted there is no independent corroboration and the trial Court s surmises and conjectures have led to the applicant s conviction. 6. Continuing his contentions, Shri Gaware has taken me through Section 19 of PC Act to stress that it begins with a nonobstinate clause. He has, then, taken me to the sanction order. Shri Gaware points out that Section 7 finds no place in the sanction order. In this context, he relies on Nanjappa v. State of Karnataka, (2015) 14 SCC 186 . He also stresses that lack of sanction goes to the root of the proceedings and vitiates the trial as well as its outcome. Shri Gaware points out that Section 7 finds no place in the sanction order. In this context, he relies on Nanjappa v. State of Karnataka, (2015) 14 SCC 186 . He also stresses that lack of sanction goes to the root of the proceedings and vitiates the trial as well as its outcome. For this proposition, he relies on Rama Narang v. Ramesh Narang, (1995) 2 SCC 513 . 7. On the merits, Shri Gaware has pointed out that even the prosecution could not assert that it is the applicant that has demanded the bribe. In this context, he has also drawn my attention to PW2, who is said to be the panch witness. He has, according to Shri Gaware, deposed that he was not an eyewitness to the event of trap, for then he was in some other room. 8. Thus, to sum up his submissions, Shri Gaware submits that the informant had no work pending with the applicant. Nor did he establish there was any demand from him. In the end, Shri Gaware has submitted that injustice was inflicted on the applicant because of, first, irregular sanction and, second, the trial Court s erroneous approach, too. So unless the conviction is set aside, Shri Gaware urges, the applicant would suffer prejudice. Prosecution''s: 9. On the other hand, Ms. P.N. Dabholkar, the learned APP, has submitted that Section 19 (3) (a) of the PC Act provides that not under all circumstances does any defect in the sanction affect the trial or its outcome. The trial to be affected or vitiated, there ought to have been, in the Court s opinion, a failure of justice. She has also taken me to subsection (4) of Section 19 to stress that the applicant has not availed himself of the opportunity to bring to the Court''s notice earlier any defect in the procedure the prosecution adopted. 10. Ms. P.N. Dabholkar has also submitted that for whatever hypothetical reason if Section 7 were held to be inapplicable, the applicant has also been convicted under Section 13 (2), which is graver, carrying a minimum four-year sentence. 11. The applicant, first, has raised no objection before the trial Court; nor has he, second, established that the alleged procedural defects have prejudiced him. Ms. Dhabolkar has also submitted that there is no failure of justice. 11. The applicant, first, has raised no objection before the trial Court; nor has he, second, established that the alleged procedural defects have prejudiced him. Ms. Dhabolkar has also submitted that there is no failure of justice. According to her, the applicant has not made out any valid grounds seeking an extraordinary remedy: the suspension of conviction. To support her contention, Ms. P.N. Dabholkar has relied on Parkash Singh Badal v. State of Punja, (2007) 1 SCC 1 Satya Narayan Sharma v. State of Rajasthan, (2001) AIR SC 2856 , and Central Bureau of Investigation v. V. K. Sehgal., (1999) 8 SCC 501 12. Heard Shri Nitin Gaware, the learned counsel for the applicant, and Ms. P.N. Dabholkar, the learned APP, for the respondent State. Discussion: 13. As I have already noted, the applicant, an Assistant Vehicle Inspector, in the Regional Transport Division of the Government, was charged with the offence under Sections 7, 13 (1) (D), read with Section 13(2) of the PC Act. Then, he was under probation. Along with another accused, the applicant was convicted under Section 8 read with Section 12 of the PC Act. He was sentenced to three years rigorous imprisonment, besides a fine of Rs.15,000/-. In the course of time, on his appealing, this Court suspended the sentence and enlarged him on bail. But, now, the applicant wants his conviction, too, suspended. 14. On the question of suspension of sentence, the legal position stands well established. To begin with, conviction signifies the status and the sentence the process. Then, usually it is the sentence that is executed. In certain situations, however, the order of conviction, too, can be executed. It is in the sense, as it is held in Rama Narang, that it may incur a disqualification. In such a case, the power under Section 389(1) of the Code could be invoked. For that, the Appellate Court s attention must be specifically invited to the consequences likely to follow, so the Court can apply its mind to the issue. 15. That said, this Court recently in Sanjay Devender Singh v. Union of India, [1] has considered this issue. It has acknowledged that the High Court, no doubt, has the power to suspend conviction, and that power springs from Section 389, read with Section 482 of Cr PC. Thus, the power is as much statutory as it is inherent. 15. That said, this Court recently in Sanjay Devender Singh v. Union of India, [1] has considered this issue. It has acknowledged that the High Court, no doubt, has the power to suspend conviction, and that power springs from Section 389, read with Section 482 of Cr PC. Thus, the power is as much statutory as it is inherent. But there ought to be cogent, compelling reasons for the Court to travel beyond the regular suspension of sentence and order the suspension of very conviction. 1. Crl Application No.607 of 2009 in Crl Appeal No.1297 of 2018, decided on 14th June 2019. 16. Precedentially speaking, in one case, one of the respondents, a police officer, was convicted under Sections 392, 218 and 466 I.P.C. The other respondents, who are also public servants, were convicted under the Prevention of Corruption Act. In a revision before the High Court, they wanted both their sentence and conviction suspended. In that context, the High Court has observed that, to suspend a conviction, one has to look into the convict s moral conduct and be satisfied of it. After taking that view, the High Court has felt that the convicts would lose their meager stipends if the conviction was not suspended. On appeal, the Supreme Court, in State of Tamil Nadu v. A. Jaganathan, (1996) AIR SC 2449 , has observed that if the revision against the conviction and sentences is ultimately allowed by the High Court, the damage, if any, caused to the respondents about the payment of stipend could well be revived and made good. It has also observed that if such trifling matters are taken into consideration, we think, then every conviction will have to be suspended pending appeal or revision involving the slightest disadvantage to a convict. So it reversed the High Court s order of suspending the conviction. 17. In another case, the respondent-accused was convicted under Section 409 IPC and Section 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act. In the appeal, the High Court has suspended the conviction solely because the non-suspension of conviction may entail removal of the delinquent government servant from service. Then, the Supreme Court in Union of India v. Atar Singh, (2003) 12 SCC 434 has observed that undoubtedly Section 389 of Cr PC., confers a discretion on the appellate court to decide the question of suspension of a conviction in a given case. Then, the Supreme Court in Union of India v. Atar Singh, (2003) 12 SCC 434 has observed that undoubtedly Section 389 of Cr PC., confers a discretion on the appellate court to decide the question of suspension of a conviction in a given case. At the same time, it would always be open for the Supreme Court to examine the correctness of the High Court s discretion. Then, on facts, the Supreme Court has concluded that the High Court has mechanically passed the order; it ought not to have exercised the discretion in the respondent s favour. Does this Case establish the Ingredients for the Court s Suspending the Conviction? 18. Indeed, the applicant s counsel has made all his efforts to impress on the Court it is a fit case for that extraordinary step: suspension of conviction. He initially drew my attention to the merits. When I told him merits could not be gone into at this interlocutory stage, Shri Gaware, the applicant s counsel, has confined his submissions to one particular aspect: the defect in the sanction the prosecution secured under Section 19 of the PC Act. 19. So let us examine the statutory provisions on the question of sanction for prosecution. Section 19 of the PC Act, pivotal for our purpose, suffered extensive amendments through Act 16 of 2018. But we are concerned with the unamended provision for the alleged offense took place before the amendment. The provision concerns the previous sanction necessary for prosecution. Under sub-section (1), courts are barred from taking cognizance of an offence punishable under section 7, 10, 11, 13 and 15 alleged to have been committed by a public servant, except with the previous sanction. 20. When the offence was committed, if the accused had been employed in connection with the affairs of the Union and is not removable from his office save by or with the sanction of the Central Government , then that Government, as clause (a) mandates, must sanction the prosecution. 21. Similarly, as clause (b) mandates, if the accused was employed by the State in connection with its affairs and is not removable from his office save by or with the sanction of the State Government , then that Government must sanction the prosecution. 21. Similarly, as clause (b) mandates, if the accused was employed by the State in connection with its affairs and is not removable from his office save by or with the sanction of the State Government , then that Government must sanction the prosecution. Residuarily, if the employee belongs to neither category, then any other authority who is competent to remove him from his office should sanction the prosecution. 22. Under sub-section (2), if a doubt arises whether the previous sanction should be given by the Central Government or the State Government or any other authority, the sanction must be given by that Government or authority which would have been competent to remove the public servant from his office when the offence was alleged to have been committed. 23. Indeed, Sub-Sections (3) and (4) are vital, and they read: (3) Notwithstanding anything contained in the code of Criminal Procedure, 1973,- (a) no finding, sentence or order passed by a special Judge shall be reversed or altered by a Court in appeal, confirmation or revision on the ground of the absence of, or any error, omission or irregularity in, the sanction required under sub-section (1), unless in the opinion of that court, a failure of justice has in fact been occasioned thereby; (b) no court shall stay the proceedings under this Act on the ground of any error, omission or irregularity in the sanction granted by the authority, unless it is satisfied that such error, omission or irregularity has resulted in a failure of justice; (c) no court shall stay the proceedings under this Act on any other ground and no court shall exercise the powers of revision in relation to any interlocutory order passed in any inquiry, trial, appeal or other proceedings. (4) In determining under sub-section (3) whether the absence of, or any error, omission or irregularity in, such sanction has occasioned or resulted in a failure of justice the court shall have regard to the fact whether the objection could and should have been raised at any earlier stage in the proceedings. Explanation.-For the purposes of this section,- (a) error includes competency of the authority to grant sanction; (b) a sanction required for prosecution includes reference to any requirement that the prosecution shall be at the instance of a specified authority or with the sanction of a specified person or any requirement of a similar nature. Explanation.-For the purposes of this section,- (a) error includes competency of the authority to grant sanction; (b) a sanction required for prosecution includes reference to any requirement that the prosecution shall be at the instance of a specified authority or with the sanction of a specified person or any requirement of a similar nature. (italics added) 24. To elaborate, I may note that sub-section (3) begins with a non-obstante expression. That is, this provision stands unaffected by the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. So no finding, sentence, or order passed by a special Judge shall be reversed, altered, stayed, on the ground of the absence of, or any error, omission or irregularity in, the sanction required under sub-section (1). It can, of course, be reversed or altered or stayed only if the court at the higher echelons concludes that the defective sanction has occasioned a failure of justice. 25. Before the appellate or revisional court could interfere under sub-section (3), it must consider whether the objection could and should have been raised at any earlier stage in the proceedings. Subsection (4) supplies this additional safeguard. And its explanation clarifies that (a) error includes the authority s competency to grant sanction; and (b) the sanction required for prosecution includes reference to any requirement that the prosecution shall be at the instance of a specified authority or with the sanction of a specified person or any requirement of a similar nature. 26. This unamended provision was interpreted many a time. One such instance is Nanjappa. The Supreme Court has held that Section 19(1) of the PC Act leaves no manner of doubt that it is couched in mandatory terms. It forbids courts from taking cognizance of any offence punishable under Sections 7, 10, 11, 13 and 15 against public servants except with the previous sanction of the competent authority, as enumerated in clauses (a), (b) and (c) to sub-section (1) of Section 19. The provision in sub-section (1), Nanjappa emphasises, would operate in absolute terms but for sub-section (3) to Section 19. Save that limitation, the language employed in sub-section (1) of Section 19 admits of no equivocation and operates as a complete and absolute bar. 27. To appreciate the case-holding of Nanjappa, we may briefly note its facts. The case involved offences under Sections 7 and 13, read with Section 13 (2) of the PC Act. Save that limitation, the language employed in sub-section (1) of Section 19 admits of no equivocation and operates as a complete and absolute bar. 27. To appreciate the case-holding of Nanjappa, we may briefly note its facts. The case involved offences under Sections 7 and 13, read with Section 13 (2) of the PC Act. The trial court acquitted the appellant, but the High Court overturned the acquittal; it convicted the appellant. 28. Among other things, first, the trial court has held that the sanction for the appellant s prosecution had not been granted by the competent authority and was, therefore, not in accordance with Section 19 of the P.C. Act. The High Court has, however, held that the appellant did not question the validity of the sanction at the appropriate stage, so he could not raise the plea at the conclusion of the trial. 29. The Supreme Court, in the above factual backdrop, has first held that the appeal must succeed on the short ground that in the absence of a valid previous sanction under Section 19 of the PC Act, the trial Court was incompetent to take cognizance of the offence. Then, it has observed that the question about the validity of any sanction could be raised at the stage of final arguments after the trial or even at the appellate stage. 30. Pertinently, Nanjappa also addresses the impact of subsection (3) of Section 19. This sub-section simply forbids interference with the Special Judge s order, in appeal, confirmation, or revisional proceedings on the ground that the sanction is bad unless the defective sanction resulted in a failure of justice. Nanjappa s clinching observation is that sub-section (3) postulates a prohibition against a higher court reversing an order passed by the Special Judge on the ground of any defect, omission or irregularity in the order of sanction. In this context, Nanjappa further observes: [i]t does not forbid a Special Judge from passing an order at whatever stage of the proceedings holding that the prosecution is not maintainable for want of a valid order sanctioning the same. The language employed in sub-section (3) is, in our opinion, clear and unambiguous. . . In this context, Nanjappa further observes: [i]t does not forbid a Special Judge from passing an order at whatever stage of the proceedings holding that the prosecution is not maintainable for want of a valid order sanctioning the same. The language employed in sub-section (3) is, in our opinion, clear and unambiguous. . . The rationale underlying the provision obviously is that if the trial has proceeded to conclusion and resulted in a finding or sentence, the same should not be lightly interfered with by the appellate or the revisional court simply because there was some omission, error or irregularity in the order sanctioning prosecution under Section 19(1). Failure of justice is, what the appellate or revisional Court would in such cases look for. And while examining whether any such failure had indeed taken place, the Court concerned would also keep in mind whether the objection touching the error, omission or irregularity in the sanction could or should have been raised at an earlier stage of the proceedings meaning thereby whether the same could and should have been raised at the trial stage instead of being urged in appeal or revision. 31. On the facts, Nanjappa notes that The High Court did not realise that the issue was not being raised before it for the first time but had been successfully urged before the trial Court. 32. In Parkash Singh Badal, the Supreme Court has held that the sanctioning authority does not have to separately specify each offence against the accused public servant. This must be done at the stage of framing of charge. Law requires that before the sanctioning authority materials must be placed so he can apply his mind and take a decision. Whether there is an application of mind or not would depend on the facts and circumstances of each case. And there cannot be any generalised guidelines in that regard. 33. Parkash Singh Badal has also considered what amounts to failure of justice. In that context, it has held that the effect of subsections (3) and (4) of Section 19 of the Act are important. In subsection (3) the stress is on failure of justice and it must be in the opinion of the court . In sub-section (4), the stress is on raising the plea at the appropriate time. Significantly, the failure of justice is relatable to error, omission or irregularity in the sanction. In subsection (3) the stress is on failure of justice and it must be in the opinion of the court . In sub-section (4), the stress is on raising the plea at the appropriate time. Significantly, the failure of justice is relatable to error, omission or irregularity in the sanction. Therefore, mere error, omission or irregularity in sanction is not considered fatal unless it has resulted in the failure of justice. Section 19(1), according to Parkash Singh Badal, is a matter of procedure and does not go to the root of jurisdiction as observed in para 95 of Narasimha Rao, 1998 4 SCC 626 case. Subsection (3)(c) of Section 19 reduces the rigour of prohibition. 34. In Satya Narayan Sharma, the Supreme Court, per K. T. Thomas J., has held that in determining whether there was any failure of justice because of defect in sanction, the court shall have regard to the fact whether the objection regarding that aspect could or should have been raised at any earlier stage in the proceedings. Merely because objection regarding sanction was raised at the early stage is not a ground, stresses Satya Narayan Sharma, for holding that there was failure of justice. 35. Then confining to the facts, Satya Narayan Sharma holds that overruling an objection on the ground of sanction does not end the case detrimentally to the accused. It only equips a judicial forum to examine the allegations against a public servant judicially. Hence it is an uphill task to show that discountenance of any objection regarding sanction has resulted in a failure of justice. The corollary of it is this: the High Court would not normally grant a stay on that ground either. 36. A court of appeal or revision is debarred from reversing a finding (or even an order of conviction and sentence) because of any error or irregularity in the sanction for the prosecution unless failure of justice had been occasioned because of such error or irregularity. For determining whether want of valid sanction had in fact occasioned failure of justice, according to V.K. Sehgal, sub-section (2) of Section 465 of Cr PC., a provision analogous to Section 19 of PC Act, enjoins on the court a duty to consider whether the accused had raised any objection on that score at the trial stage. For determining whether want of valid sanction had in fact occasioned failure of justice, according to V.K. Sehgal, sub-section (2) of Section 465 of Cr PC., a provision analogous to Section 19 of PC Act, enjoins on the court a duty to consider whether the accused had raised any objection on that score at the trial stage. Even if he raised any such objection at the early stage, it would hardly be sufficient to conclude there was a failure of justice. It has to be determined on the facts of each case. But an accused who did not raise it at the trial stage cannot possibly sustain such a plea made for the first time in the appellate court. 37. Then, V. K. Sehgal underlines the statutory purpose of prior sanction. According to it, if the accused failed to raise the question of valid sanction, the trial would normally proceed to its logical end with the judicial scrutiny of the entire material. If the case ends in a conviction, there is no question of failure of justice on the mere premise that no valid sanction was accorded for prosecuting the public servant. To provide such a filtering check is to safeguard public servants from frivolous or mala fide or vindictive prosecution on the allegation that they have committed offence in the discharge of their official duties. But once the judicial filtering process is over on completion of the trial, the purpose of providing for the initial sanction would amount to a surplusage. This could be the reason for providing a bridle upon the appellate and revisional forums as envisaged in Section 465 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 38. Undisputed is the above proposition of law, but its application is premature here. For what I have before me is an application for suspension of conviction. The applicant has raised the alleged defect in sanction as a ground to sustain his plea that his very conviction should be suspended. He has also raised a few pleas on the merits, too. If I consider either the plea of a defect in sanction or the contentions on merits, it may prejudice either the prosecution or even the applicant in the appeal, which is yet to be taken up. So I leave all the pleas now the applicant has raised before me and allow him to take them when the appeal is argued. 39. So I leave all the pleas now the applicant has raised before me and allow him to take them when the appeal is argued. 39. The applicant is a probationer. He faced an allegation, stood trial, and suffered conviction. With that, his presumption to innocence may not disappear, but prima facie his guilt was brought home after trial. Until that is dislodged, the applicant must have established exceptional circumstances to have his conviction suspended. Mere career prospects or stigma will not suffice. 40. As I have already noted, the Supreme Court in A. Jaganathan has held that if the appeal or revision against the conviction and sentence is ultimately allowed by the High Court, the damage, if any, caused to the applicant s career could well be revived and made good. So I dismiss the Criminal Application.