Supreme Court - Daily Orders
Nirmal Sinha vs The State Of Uttar Pradesh on 1 May, 2019
Bench: A.M. Khanwilkar, Ajay Rastogi
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. OF 2019
(Arising out of SLP (Crl.) D. No. 41547 of 2018)
NIRMAL SINHA Appellant(s)
VERSUS
THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ORS. Respondent(s)
O R D E R
Leave granted.
Heard learned counsel for the parties. This appeal takes exception to the judgment and order dated 30.10.2019 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Criminal Misc. Application No.38676 of 2018 whereby the High Court dismissed the application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of criminal case against the appellant herein who has been named as accused No.6 in crime registered as RC No.219-2016 (E) Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by DEEPAK SINGH 17:50:27 IST Reason: 0007 for offence punishable under Sections 120B read with Date: 2019.05.03 1 420 IPC and 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
The principal grievance made before the High Court by the appellant was that the Trial Court could not have taken cognizance of the case without a prior sanction accorded by the sanctioning authority to prosecute the appellant in terms of the amended Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. That contention, we find, has been disposed of by the High Court in a very cursory manner, as can be discerned from the observations in paragraph 13 of the impugned order. The same reads thus:
“13. It appears from the above amended provision that now the Government servant who, till now, after retirement could have been proceeded against in a criminal prosecution for an offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act without any sanction to prosecute him by the competent authority, for an offence which is alleged to have been committed by him during the course of his employment, has now been extended protection to the extent that even if he has retired, the sanction from competent authority would be required for his criminal prosecution. Therefore it would appear that the protection which was not provided under sections 19 of the PC Act to a retired Government servant, would now be 2 there just like he would have the protection under sections 197 Cr.P.C. for criminal prosecution for committing an offence under any other sections of IPC. We find that in prosecution of a Government servant for an offence under IPC which he committed during the performance of his official duty Section 197 Cr.P.C. gives a protection from being prosecuted unless sanction has been obtained from the competent authority to prosecute him but if the offence is found to have been committed by such a Government servant not during course of his official duty, he stands deprived of such protection. We are not inclined to consider here as to whether the amended provision of Section 19 of the PC Act would be applicable in the present case or not because it involves offences under IPC also. Therefore in any way the proceedings in totality may not be dropped even if the amended provision of Section 19 is found applicable.” (emphasis supplied) We have no manner of doubt that this is not the way to dispose of the ground urged by the appellant regarding prior sanction, which is a pre-condition to prosecute the appellant. That plea is one of jurisdiction of the Court to proceed in the matter. Therefore, we set aside the impugned order and relegate the parties before the High Court to consider the matter afresh, by restoring the application to its original number, on its own merits and 3 in accordance with law uninfluenced by any observation in the impugned order.
The appellant prays for interim protection until the matter is decided by the High Court. Learned counsel for the respondent - CBI on instructions, submits that no coercive action will be taken against the appellant until the issue regarding prior sanction is finally answered by the High Court and until such other orders that may be passed by the High Court in that regard. In view of this assurance, we direct that the appellant may not be arrested in connection with stated crime until the High Court decides the issue regarding sanction. This indulgence is shown on the assurance given by the appellant through counsel that he shall make himself available as and when required in connection with the Special Case.
In the event, the ground regarding sanction, as raised by the appellant, is decided against the appellant, the interim protection given to the appellant to continue for a period of four weeks to enable the 4 appellant to take recourse to appropriate remedy. The Criminal Appeal is disposed of in the above terms.
Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.
…...................J (A.M. KHANWILKAR) …...................J (AJAY RASTOGI) New Delhi May 01, 2019 5 ITEM NO.8 COURT NO.8 SECTION II S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRIMINAL) Diary No(s). 41547/2018 (Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 30- 10-2018 in CRLMA No. 38676/2018 passed by the High Court Of Judicature At Allahabad) NIRMAL SINHA Petitioner(s) VERSUS THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ANR. Respondent(s) (FOR ADMISSION and I.R. and IA No.161586/2018-EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT and IA No.161587/2018- EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T. and IA No.161581/2018-PERMISSION TO FILE SLP WITHOUT CERTIFIED/PLAIN COPY OF IMPUGNED ORDER ) WITH SLP(Crl) No. 10849/2018 (II) (FOR ADMISSION and I.R. and IA No.179935/2018-EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.) Diary No(s). 46022/2018 (II) (FOR ADMISSION and I.R. and IA No.180900/2018-EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT and IA No.180902/2018- EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T. and IA No.180895/2018-PERMISSION TO FILE SLP WITHOUT CERTIFIED/PLAIN COPY OF IMPUGNED ORDER and IA No.180987/2018-PERMISSION TO FILE ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS/FACTS/ANNEXURES) Diary No(s). 46023/2018 (II) (FOR ADMISSION and I.R. and IA No.180863/2018-EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT and IA No.180865/2018- EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T. and IA No.180860/2018-PERMISSION TO FILE SLP WITHOUT CERTIFIED/PLAIN COPY OF IMPUGNED ORDER and IA No.180967/2018-PERMISSION TO FILE ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS/FACTS/ANNEXURES) Diary No(s). 46024/2018 (II) ( IA No.180168/2018-EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT and IA No.180169/2018-EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T. and IA No.180161/2018-PERMISSION TO FILE SLP WITHOUT CERTIFIED/PLAIN COPY OF IMPUGNED ORDER) Date : 01-05-2019 This petition was called on for hearing today.
6 CORAM :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.M. KHANWILKAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY RASTOGI For Petitioner(s) Mr. Sidharth Dave, Sr. Adv.
Ms. Anushree Prashit Kapadia, AOR Ms. Kavita Bhardwaj, Adv.
Mr. Kapil Sibal, Sr. Adv.
Mr. A. Sharan, Sr. Adv.
Ms. Shakun Sharma, Adv.
Mr. Samarth Khanna, Adv.
Mr. Sanjay Kumar, Adv.
Ms. Shakun Sharma, AOR Ms. Malvika Trivedi, Adv.
Mr. Rajat Sehgal, Adv.
Mr. Vikas Mehta, AOR Mr. Siddharth Bhatnagar, Sr. Adv. Ms. Garima Bajaj, AOR Mr. Rahul Arya, Adv.
For Respondent(s) Mr. Aman Lekhi, ASG Mr. Satya Lipsu Ray, Adv.
Mr. Harish Pandey, Adv.
Mr. Abhishek Raj, Adv.
Mr. Arvind Kumar Sharma, AOR Mr. Madhvi Diwan, ASG Mr. Adit Khurana, Adv.
Mr. Prashant Singh, Adv.
Mrs. Swarupama Chaturvedi, AOR Mr. Harin P. Raval, Sr. Adv.
Mr. G. Prakash, Adv.
Mr. Jishnu M.L., Adv.
Mrs. Priyanka Prakash, Adv.
Mrs. Beena Prakash, Adv.7
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R SLP(CRL.) Diary No(s). 41547/2018 Permission to file Special Leave Petition is granted.
Leave granted.
The Criminal Appeal is disposed of in terms of the signed order.
Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.
SLP(CRL.) No. 10849/2018, SLP(CRL.) D. Nos. 46022, 46023 and 46024 of 2018 List all these matters in the second week of August, 2019.
In the meantime, it will be open to the petitioner to file additional paper book, as prayed.
The petitioner to appear before the concerned Court as and when required.
(DEEPAK SINGH) (VIDYA NEGI) COURT MASTER (SH) COURT MASTER (NSH)
[Signed order is placed on the file] 8