Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

CIF converted to FOB and additional freight and insurance added. Total FRF remained the same. A2, A3, A8 and A9 were the Board Members. 16-12-1993 Agreement signed between KSEB and accused No.13 The question of sanction under Sec. 197 Cr.P.C. can be considered only during the trial of the case . (See P.K. Pradhan v. State of Sikkim - 2001 Crl.L.J. 3505 SC, Paragraph 29 of M.P. Special Police Establishment v. State of M.P. and Others - 2004 (8) SCC 788 and State of & Maharashtra v. Devahari Devasingh Pawar & Others - 2008 Crl.L.J. 1593 (SC). Committing an offence is no part of the official duty of a public servant. Hence, for prosecuting a public servant who has committed offences punishable under Sections 420, 120 B and related offences, no sanction is necessary under Sec. 197 Cr.P.C. (See Harihar Prasad v. State of Bihar - 1972 SCC Crl. 409 - Para 66, State of Kerala v. Padmanabhan Nair - 1999 Crl.L.J. 3696 (SC), Parkash Singh Badal and Another v. State of Punjab and Others - 2007 (1) SCC 1- Para 50, State of H.P. v. M.P. Gupta - 2004 (2) SCC 349 - Para 21, Satwant Singh v. The State of Punjab - AIR 1960 SC 266, Bakhshish Singh v. The State of Punjab - AIR 1967 SC 752 and Manohar Nath Kaul v. State of Jammu and Kashmir - AIR 1983 SC 610). Equally misconceived is the contention based on Sec. 188 Cr.P.C. It is true that the offences were committed both in India and abroad . But the agreement entered into by the accused was for committing the offence of making unlawful gain for the French Company and the criminal conspiracy hatched in this behalf will endure only when it is accomplished, & abandoned of proved abortive. In other words, the agreement will continue until the unlawful object is achieved. Criminal conspiracy is a continuing offence and therefore by virtue of Sec. 181 (4) Cr.P.C. until the object is achieved the criminal conspiracy does not vanish. (See Ajay Aggarwal v. Union of India and Others - (1993) 3 SCC 609). Criminal conspiracy terminates at the place where the consequence ensues. Both the overt acts by A5 were committed in India. Hence, Sec. 188 Cr.P.C. is not attracted. Vide (1993) 3 SCC 609 (Supra) and Shatkh Rafiq and Anr. v. State of Maharashtra - 2008 Crl.L.J. 1592. The offence of criminal conspiracy is a continuing offence and it has terminated in causing loss to the Brahmapuram plant of the K.S.E.B. and a corresponding gain to the French Company. The Vigilance Court, Thrissur has been assigned the territorial limits of Ernakulam District and since the Brahmapuram plant is situated in Ernakulam District, the Vigilance Court at Thrissur has jurisdiction to take cognizance of the offences and issue process to the accused. The act of taking cognizance of the offence and issuing process to the accused do not amount to "enquiry" within the meaning of Sec. & 188 Cr.P.C. even if the said provision is attracted in this case. Both the Writ Petitions deserve only to be dismissed.

ABSENCE OF SANCTION UNDER SECTION 188 Cr.P.C.

14. I now proceed to consider the defence contention based on Sec. 188 Cr.P.C. The said Section reads as follows:

"188. Offence committed outside India - When an offence is committed outside India -
(a) by a citizen of India, whether on the high seas or elsewhere ; or
b) by a person, not being such citizen, on any ship or aircraft registered in India, he may be dealt with in respect of such offence as if it had been committed at any place within India at which he may be found :

15. One line of judicial opinion that even for conducting investigation, previous sanction of the Central Government is necessary, may be due to the employment of the words "he (the offender) may be dealt with in respect of such offence as if it had been committed at any place within India" in Section 188 Cr.P.C. In Shadili v. Uthaman - 1988 (2) KLT 191 a & learned single judge of this Court had taken the view that the Court's power to inquire into or try an offence committed outside India as per Sec. 188 Cr.P.C. depends on the previous sanction of the Central Government and consequently the police officer will have no power to investigate the offence also in view of Sec. 156 (3) Cr.P.C. In Central Bureau of Investigation v. State of Rajasthan - (1996) 9 SCC 735 it is observed in paragraph 30 as follows:-

18. No doubt , in paragraph 27 of Ajay Aggarwal's case after holding that sanction under Sec. 188 is not a condition precedent for taking cognizance of the offence, it is observed that if need be, such sanction could be obtained before the trial begins. First of all, after holding that the offences in that case were committed at Chandigarh in India and not outside & India and, therefore, Sec. 188 Cr.P.C. was not attracted, it was not necessary for the Supreme Court to consider the stage at which the previous sanction of the Central Government under the proviso to Sec. 188 Cr.P.C. was to be obtained. Hence, the observation in paragraph 27 of the reported decision is only an obiter dictum which cannot be treated as the law laid down by the Supreme Court within the meaning of Article 141 of the Constitution of India. In Samaruddin v. Assistant Director - 1999 (2) KLT 794 a Full Bench of this Court after referring to the authorities including Ajay Agarwal's case observed that no sanction under the proviso to Sec. 188 Cr.P.C. is needed at the pre-inquiry stage which is the stage of investigation.