Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

On September 1,1988 R.K. Singh sent a written report to the Station House Officer, Police Station Gandhi Maidan, Patna on the basis of which a case under Sections 409, 420, 468, 469, 471, 120B I.P.C. and 7 of the Essential Commodities Act was registered against eight persons including Tapeshwar Singh, P.P. Sharma and G.D. Mishra. Four other accused persons are the directors of the firm and the fifth one is alleged to have forged the test report given by the Rajendra Agricultural University, Pusa. It would be useful to reproduce the First Information Report (hereinafter called `FIR') hereinafter :

It is, therefore, manifest from aforesaid facts that the then Chairman, Sri Tapeshwar Singh, Managing Director Shri B.P. Sharma, Shri G.D.Mishra had entered into a criminal conspiracy with Shri O.P.Agarwal, M.D. Narayan Lal Agrawal, Banshi Lal Agrawal and Gopal Lal Agrawal, Director of Rajasthan Multi Fertilisers Pvt. Ltd. and thus Biscomaun was cheated of Rs.53,97,277.32. Tapeshwar Singh and P.P.Sharma accused persons filed Writ Petition 289 of 1988 on September 29, 1988 before the Patna High Court with a prayer that the First Information Report be quashed. The petition was adjourned to different dates on the request of the counsel for the petitioners. Meanwhile the investigation in the case was completed by the police and two police reports, one under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act and the other under various section of the I.P.C., were submitted before the Competent Court in October, 1988. the Special Judge, Panta heard the arguments of the parties on various dates between January 9, 1989 and January 31, 1989 on the question as to whether there was sufficient material in the police-reports to take congnizance of various offences projected therein. On January 31, 1989 the learned Special Judge concluded the arguments and reserved the orders.

4. The order granting sanction under Section 197 Cr. P.C. in respect of P.P. Sharma was illegal.

5. No case under Essential commodities Act was made out from the police report and other documents on the record.

The finding that no prima facie offence was made out against the respondents was reached by the High Court on the following reasoning.

``We are always conscious of the legal position and the various pronouncements of the courts in India that disputed questions of facts cannot be decided on the basis of affidavits. But when some documents have been brought on the record which are official records, which were in possession of the Biscomaun and so in the possession of the informant himself and further when in the replies neither the informant nor the I.O. nor any officer of the State Government has challenged the correctness of those documentary material so they are at present not disputed and when it appears from the argument and the notes given by the learned counsel for the opposite party and Annexures 1, 2, 9, 10, 12, and 13 have been considered by the I.O. and they formed part of the records of the investigation except annexure-I which was seized during the investigation and formed part of the criminal proceedings. Annexures 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 11, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21/1, 22, 22/1, 24, 25, 26 and 39 which have been referred to earlier and dealt with, do not appear to have been considered by the I.O. nor any reference about these have been made in the arguments by the learned counsel for the opposite party which apparently have non-considered and non-disputed and when those documents themselves demonstrate that no prima facie offence is made out on the face value of those materials, then the criminal prosecution should not be allowed to continue and so it should be quashed.'' It is thus obvious that `the annexures' were neither part of the police-reports nor were relied upon by the investigating officer. These documents were produced by the respondents before the High Court along with the writ petitions. By treating `the annexures' and affidavits as evidence and by converting itself into a trial court the High Court pronounced the respondents to be innocent and quashed the proceedings. The last we can say is that this was not at all a case where High Court should have interfered in the exercise of its inherent jurisdiction. This Court has repeatedly held that the appreciation of evidence is the function of the criminal courts. The High Court, under the circumstances, could not have assumed jurisdiction and put an end to the process of investigation and trial provided under the law. Since the High Court strongly relied upon ``the annexures'' in support of its findings, we may briefly examine these documents.

Dr. Shankar Ghosh and Mr. R.K. Jain, learned counsel appearing for the respondents have vehemently supported the findings of the High Court to the effect that the composite order granting sanction under section 197 Cr. P.C. and section 15-A of the Essential Commodities Act was vitated because of non application of mind on the part of the competent authority. The relevant part of the sanction order is as under :

``Whereas after going through the papers and case diary, available in the Department of Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department File No. 1/A-3/89 endorsed to the, Law Department State Government is satisfied that under Section 409/420/467/468/471/120 of Indian Penal Code (Act 45 of 1860) and in violation of provision of Fertiliser Control Order 1985 under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, prima facie case is made out to start prosecution against the accused Shri P.P.Sharma. I.A.S. Chairman, Sone Command Development, Agency, the Managing Director, Biscomaun, Patna in the Gandhi Maidan P.S. Case No. 970/88 ........'' ``And therefore, in the exercise of the powers conferred under Section 197 Cr. P.C. 1973 (Act Fert. II of 1974) and under section 15 of the Essential Commodities Act 1955 prosecution has been sanctioned under section 409/420/467/468/471/120 and under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act''.