Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

1.(2007) 1 Supreme Court Cases 1, Parkash Singh Badal and Another v. State of Punjab and Others.

2.(2012) 3 Supreme Court Cases 64, Subramanian Swamy v. Manmohan Singh and Another.

3.2014 SCC OnLine SC 1019, State of Punjab v. Labh Singh.

4.2015 SCC OnLine SC 390, D.T.Virupakshappa v. C.Subash.

17. The learned counsel further submitted that even breach of provision of law does not constitute a criminal offence. For the said proposition, he relied upon the following decisions:

1.(1996) 10 Supreme Court Cases 193, C.Chenga Reddy and Others v. State of A.P. 2.2012 (7) SCALE 520, Subramanian Swamy v. A.Raja.

61. A plea of mala fides has not only to be clearly pleaded but specifically proved by adducing cogent evidence. Mere allegation and suspicions would not be sufficient. The person against whom mala fides conduct is attributed is interestingly not a party in the proceedings.

32.2. In the decision reported in (2012) 3 Supreme Court Cases 64, Subramanian Swamy v. Manmohan Singh and Another, it was held that the decision to grant or to refuse sanction is not a quasi-judicial function but an administrative function and the Sanctioning authority has to apply his mind and find whether the material collected against a public servant is prima facie sufficient to proceed against him. It is appropriate to incorporate paragraphs 39, 60 to 63 and 64.1 of the said decision:

10. In our view, the above guidelines squarely apply in the case of the appellant herein. Going by the factual matrix, it is evident that the whole allegation is on police excess in connection with the investigation of a criminal case. The said offensive conduct is reasonably connected with the performance of the official duty of the appellant. Therefore, the learned Magistrate could not have taken cognizance of the case without the previous sanction of the State Government. The High Court missed this crucial point in the impugned order. 32.5. In the decision reported in 2012 (7) SCALE 520, Subramanian Swamy v. A.Raja, it was held that a wrong judgment or an inaccurate or incorrect approach or poor management by itself, even after due deliberations between the Minister or even with the Prime Minister, by itself cannot be said to be a product of criminal conspiracy. It is appropriate to incorporate paragraphs 52 and 53 of the said judgment:

43. Further, as stated supra, in the decision reported in 2012 (7) SCALE 520, Subramanian Swamy v. A.Raja, it was held that a wrong judgment or an inaccurate or incorrect approach or poor management by itself, even after due deliberations between the Minister or even with the Prime Minister, by itself cannot be said to be a product of criminal conspiracy.

44. Thus, as per the above citations, it can be concluded that the irregularities alleged to have committed by the revision petitioners/A-1 and A-2 does not constitute a criminal offence.