Supreme Court - Daily Orders
B.Y. Raghavendra vs The State Of Karnataka Home Department ... on 4 August, 2022
Bench: S. Abdul Nazeer, J.K. Maheshwari
1
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1881 OF 2019
B.Y. RAGHAVENDRA …APPELLANT
Versus
VINOD B. …RESPONDENT
ORDER
Heard.
2. The facts relevant for disposal of this case are that the Appellant is a member of Parliament from Shivamogga District, Karnataka, and also held the said post from the same constituency from 2009 to 2014. He was a member of Karnataka State Legislative Assembly from 2014 to 2018. As gathered from the records of this case, Respondent no. 2 filed four complaints against the Appellant alleging commission of offence under Section 13(1)(d) and 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short “PC Act”) read with Section 120B and 420 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short “IPC”). The first complaint, being P.C.R. No. 29 of 2012 was filed before learned Judge Special Court, Bangalore on 21.05.2012 alleging that Appellant has amassed Signature Not Verified many acres of agricultural land in Shivamogga and illegally got them Digitally signed by Anita Malhotra Date: 2022.08.13 10:53:56 IST Reason: converted for industrial use in violation of Land Reforms Act. It was 2 further alleged that the Appellant did not declare correct information before the Election Commission prior to the elections conducted in 2009. Aggrieved, the Appellant filed Writ Petition No. 38135 of 2015 before the High Court seeking quashment of the aforesaid complaint. The High Court vide order dated 05.02.2013 allowed the writ petition and directed the special court to return the complaint in terms of Section 200 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short “Cr.P.C”) for presentation before the jurisdictional court. Thereafter, Respondent no. 2 filed a second complaint being P.C.R. No. 79 of 2013 dated 27.11.2013 before learned Special Judge for CBI, Bangalore alleging commission of similar offences as mentioned in the first complaint. Vide order dated 03.05.2014, the said second complaint was dismissed as nonmaintainable by Principal Special Judge for want of prior sanction for initiating prosecution against the Appellant. Prior to dismissal of second complaint, Respondent no. 2 also preferred a third complaint being P.C.R. No. 29 of 2012 dated 26.12.2013 before Special Court for Lokayukta, Shivamogga containing similar set of allegations as made in the first two complaints. However, the said third complaint also came to be dismissed by order dated 20.02.2014 by learned Principal Sessions Judge, Special Court for Lokayukta, Shivamogga for want of sanction. Meanwhile, the Appellant demitted 3 the office as member of Parliament upon completion of his tenure in 2014. Thereafter, on 04.06.2014, a fourth complaint being P.C.R. No. 16 of 2014 was lodged by Respondent No.2 under section 200 Cr.P.C before learned Judge CBI, Bangalore making the same allegations as in the earlier three complaints seeking a direction under section 156(3) Cr.P.C. for the matter to be investigated by CBI. The Special Judge CBI vide order dated 30.09.2014, while dismissing the prayer for direction to CBI, proceeded while assuming itself as court of original jurisdiction and permitted the Respondent no. 2 to adduce his statement sworn on oath as provided under section 200 Cr.P.C. It was also observed by the learned Special Judge that as the Appellant has ceased to be a member of Parliament and as such there was no pre requirement of sanction under Section 19 of PC Act. During the pendency of proceedings, Appellant, through RTI, came to know that an application requesting sanction for prosecuting the Appellant was rejected by the Speaker, Lok Sabha vide letter dated 25.10.2013. Meanwhile, the Special Judge took cognizance against the Appellant to further the proceedings initiated by the fourth complaint vide order dated 02.12.2014.
3. Being aggrieved by the aforementioned order of the Special Judge, Appellant filed Writ Petition No. 55160 of 2014 under Article 4 226 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 of Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of proceedings initiated on the basis of the fourth complaint. The High Court dismissed the said writ petition holding that the learned Special Judge had jurisdiction to entertain the complaint and had sufficient reasons to believe that the Appellant had amassed wealth disproportionate to known sources of income in order to proceed against the Appellant under PC Act. The High Court also held that the authenticity of the sanction rejection letter dated 25.10.2013 is suspicious as the Appellant has failed to provide a certified copy of the same. In such circumstances, the High Court held that it is not a case where sanction to prosecute was rejected during the tenure of Appellant as member of Parliament. Aggrieved, the Appellant filed the instant criminal appeal before this Court.
4. The learned counsel for the Appellants has contended that the ratio of this Court in the case of Chittaranjan Das v. State of Orissa, (2011) 7 SCC 167 is applicable on the facts of present case. It has been further contended that in Chittaranjan Das (supra), this Court held that if sanction for prosecution is refused during the service of the public servant, he cannot be prosecuted after his retirement, irrespective of the fact that no sanction is necessary for prosecution of public servant after his retirement. Relying upon the 5 same, the learned counsel for the Appellant has submitted that refusal of sanction by Speaker of Lok Sabha vide letter dated 25.10.2013 would prevent further prosecution against the Appellant even upon his ceasing to be a member of Parliament.
5. Per contra, the learned counsel for Respondents have vehemently argued that the Special Court while dismissing the second complaint dated 27.11.2013 for want of sanction gave liberty to the Respondent no. 2 to present a fresh complaint after obtaining necessary sanction or in the event of additional circumstances as to the altered legal position if any. The Complainant/Respondent no. 2 attempted to justify the altered position by contending that the Appellant has ceased to be a member of Parliament and hence there was no requirement to obtain prior sanction in view of the aforesaid liberty.
6. We have heard the learned counsels for both the parties. Before adverting to the merits of the appeal it is apt to notice the chronology of events up to this stage. Prior to filing the second complaint, the Respondent no. 2 had filed an application dated 10.08.2013 for grant of sanction for prosecuting the Appellant as per Section 19 of PC Act before the speaker of Lok Sabha. The said fact about making a request for sanction does not find any mention in the order dated 03.05.2014 6 whereby the Special Judge dismissed the complaint for want of pre requisite sanction. The third complaint dated 26.12.2013 was dismissed vide order dated 20.02.2014 i.e. prior to dismissal of second complaint. However, it is worthwhile to mention that the aforesaid order mentions about the application dated 10.08.2013 and reminder dated 19.10.2013 preferred by Respondent no. 2 before the Speaker, Lok Sabha. Bare perusal of the orders dated 20.02.2014 and 03.05.2014 indicate that the factum of refusal of sanction by the Speaker of Lok Sabha through letter dated 25.10.2013 was not discussed or mentioned by the lower Courts in aforesaid orders, giving an impression that the Respondent no. 2 did not apprise the learned lower Courts about the said refusal of sanction for reasons best known to him even when the said refusal was antedate to date of second and third complaint. It seems that while Respondent no. 2 specifically mentioned about the pendency of the application seeking sanction in the third complaint, he did not mention about its refusal in either of the second and third complaints. However, now it is matter of fact that as on the date of the second, third and the fourth complaint, there was already a refusal of sanction by the competent authority in favour of the Appellant while he was holding office as a member of Parliament.
7
7. Therefore, the question which comes for the consideration of this Court is whether prosecution against a public servant can be proceeded with after his retirement especially when sanction for prosecution has already been refused during the tenure of service of such public servant.
8. The aforesaid issue is no more res integra in the light of judgment passed this Court in case of Chittaranjan Das (supra) wherein this Court was dealing with issue of sanction for prosecution against one Deputy Secretary to Government of Odisha, Irrigation Department. In the said case, sanction for prosecution of the said officer was refused while he was in service. Despite the refusal, the Vigilance Department filed chargesheet against the officer upon his retirement. The Trial Court took cognizance of the offence and proceeded with the matter primarily on the ground that the officer having retired from service, prior sanction for his prosecution is not necessary. The matter came for consideration before this Court wherein this Court held that refusal of sanction during service will protect the public servant against prosecution even after his retirement. Paragraph 13 and 14 of the said judgement has been reproduced for ready reference:
“13. Here in the present case while the appellant was 8 in service sanction sought for his prosecution was declined by the State Government. The Vigilance Department did not challenge the same and allowed the appellant to retire from service. After the retirement, the Vigilance Department requested the State Government to reconsider its decision, which was not only refused but the State Government while doing so clearly observed that no prima facie case of disproportionate assets against the appellant is made out. Notwithstanding that the Vigilance Department chose to file a chargesheet after the retirement of the appellant and on that the Special Judge had taken cognizance and issued process.
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.”
9. The facts of the instant case are similar to the case referred above. In this case too, sanction for prosecution against the Appellant was refused by the Speaker, Lok Sabha through letter dated 25.10.2013 when the Appellant was serving as a public servant. Therefore, in our considered view applying the ratio of Chittaranjan 9 Das (supra), the refusal of sanction during service shall act as bar against reinitiating prosecution against the Appellant upon his retirement i.e. cessation of membership of Parliament.
10. Therefore, the appeal is allowed and the order of the High Court stands setaside.
………….……………….J. (S. ABDUL NAZEER) ……...……………………J. (J.K. MAHESHWARI) NEW DELHI;
AUGUST 04, 2022
10
ITEM NO.102 COURT NO.5 SECTION X
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Writ Petition(s)(Criminal) No(s). 20/2015
B.Y. RAGHAVENDRA Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, THROUGH SECRETARY, HOME DEPARTMENT & ORS.
Respondent(s) WITH Crl.A. No. 1881/2019 (II-C) IA No. 115709/2020 - APPROPRIATE ORDERS/DIRECTIONS IA No. 79052/2021 – CLARIFICATION/DIRECTION) W.P.(Crl.) No. 17/2015 (X) Date : 04-08-2022 These petitions were called on for hearing today. CORAM :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. ABDUL NAZEER HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J.K. MAHESHWARI For Petitioner(s) Mr. Gautam Awasthi, AOR Mr. Wattan Sharma, Adv.
Mr. Nikhil Jain, AOR Mr. Mukul Rohatgi, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Siddharth Dave, Sr. Adv.
Ms. Sonia Mathur, Adv.
Ms. Prerna Dhall, adv.
Mr. Simarjeet Saluja, Adv.
Mr. Khushboo Agarwal, Adv.
Mr. Kanu Agarwal, Adv.
Mr. Sidhartha Sinha, Adv.
Mr. Prashant Rawat, Adv.
Mr. Shivam Singhania, Adv.
Ms. Janhvi Prakash, Adv.
Ms. Rekha Pandey, Adv.
Mr. T.A. Khan, Adv.
Ms. Bani Dixit, Adv.
Ms. Deepabali D., Adv.
Mr. Sandeep Patil, Adv.
Ms. Prerna Priya Darshini, Adv.11
Ms. Priyashree Sharma PH, Adv. Mr. Syed Faraz Alam, Adv.
Mr. Nikhil Rohatgi, Adv.
Mr. Prastut Dalvi, Adv.
Ms. Vidhi Thaker, Adv.
Mr. Kush Chaturvedi, AOR For Respondent(s) Mr. V. N. Raghupathy, AOR Mr. Girish Ananthamurthy, Adv. Mrs. Vaijayanthi Girish, AOR Mr. Vikramjeet Banerjee, ASG Ms. Bani Dikshit, Adv.
Mr. T.A. Khan, Adv.
Mr. A.K. Sharma, Adv.
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Crl.A. No. 1881/2019 Appeal is allowed in terms of the signed order. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.
W.P.(Crl.) Nos. 20 & 17 of 2015 In view of the order passed in Crl. A. 1881 of 2019, the Writ Petitions are dismissed as not pressed.
Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.
(NEELAM GULATI) (KAMLESH RAWAT) ASTT. REGISTRAR-cum-PS COURT MASTER (NSH)
(Signed order in Crl. A. No. 1881 of 2019 is placed on the file)