 |
| ICC - International Criminal Court, Hague |
Recently, the Apex Court passed
an important verdict relating to granting of sanction by the government for the
prosecution of government officers. This is a very interesting case. I am
presenting the facts, issues involved and the discussion by the court in this
post. In the next post, I will give my opinion in this regard.
Facts
1. In the present case, criminal
proceedings were instituted against the respondents under different provisions
of the Indian Penal Code as well as the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
2. These proceedings were interdicted
by the High Court on the ground that sanction for prosecution of the
respondents in both the cases has been granted by the Law Department of the
State and not by the parent department to which the respondents belong.
Question of Law Involved
“Whether a criminal
prosecution ought to be interfered with by the High Courts at the instance of
an accused who seeks mid-course relief from the criminal charges levelled
against him on grounds of defects/omissions or errors in the order granting
sanction to prosecute including errors of jurisdiction to grant such sanction?”
Provisions of Law Involved
Section 19 (3) of the
Prevention of Corruption Act- Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code
of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974),
(a) no finding, sentence or
order passed by a special Judge shall be reversed or altered by a court in
appeal, confirmation or revision on the ground of the absence of, or any error,
omission or irregularity in, the sanction required under sub-section (1),
unless in the opinion of that court, a failure of justice has in fact been
occasioned thereby;
(b) no court shall stay the
proceedings under this Act on the ground
of any error, omission or irregularity in the sanction granted by the
authority, unless it is satisfied that such error, omission or irregularity has
resulted in a failure of justice;
Explanation.—For the purposes of
this section,—
(a) error includes competency
of the authority to grant sanction;
Section 465 (1) of Cr.P.C.- Finding or sentence when reversible by reason
of error, omission or irregularity. - Subject to the provisions hereinbefore
contained, no finding, sentence or order passed by a Court of competent
jurisdiction shall be reversed or altered by a Court of appeal, confirmation or
revision on account of any error, omission or irregularity in the complaint,
summons, warrant, proclamation, order, judgment or other proceedings before or
during trial or in any inquiry or other proceedings under this Code, or any
error, or irregularity in any sanction for the prosecution, unless in the
opinion of that Court, a failure of justice has in fact been occasioned
thereby.
Discussion by the Court
The court said that the main test
in this regard always is—“whether the act complained of has a reasonable
connection with the discharge of official duties by the government or the
public servant.” Now, any error, omission or irregularity in the grant of
sanction will not affect any finding, sentence or order passed by a competent
court unless in the opinion of the court a failure of justice has been
occasioned.
The court relied on the case of Prakash
Singh Badal and Anr v. State of Punjab [1]in which it was held that mere
omission, error or irregularity in sanction is not to be considered fatal
unless it has resulted in failure of justice and Section 19(1) of the PC Act is
a matter of procedure and does not go to the root of jurisdiction.
The court also found an identical
case to the present one. In State of Madhya Pradesh v. Virender Kumar
Tripathi[2],
a similar issue was in question. It was held that in view of Section 19 (3) of
the PC Act, interdicting a criminal proceeding mid-course on ground of
invalidity of the sanction order will not be appropriate unless the court can
also reach the conclusion that failure of justice had been occasioned by any
such error, omission or irregularity in the sanction. It was further held that failure of justice
can be established not at the stage of framing of charge but only after the
trial has commenced and evidence is led.
According to the court, in the
present case, the High Court wrongly interdicted the criminal proceedings on
the ground that the Law Department was not the competent authority to accord
sanction for the prosecution of the respondents. It was necessary for the High
Court to reach the conclusion that a failure of justice has been occasioned.
Also, the conclusion of the High
Court that the sanction orders in question were passed mechanically and without
consideration of the relevant facts and records is not justified. A more
appropriate stage for reaching the said conclusion would have been only after
evidence in the cases had been led on the issue in question.
To be Continued.....
No comments:
Post a Comment