A. SRINIVASULU versus THE STATE REP. BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE

Citation: [2023] 10 S.C.R. 11 · Decided: 15-06-2023 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 7 judgment(s) · cites 14 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
11
A. SRINIVASULU
v.
THE STATE REP. BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE
(Criminal Appeal No. 2417 of 2010)
JUNE 15, 2023
[V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN AND PANKAJ MITHAL, JJ.]
Penal Code, 1860: ss.120B, 193, 420, 468 and 471 – Criminal
conspiracy and cheating – Prosecution case that the appellant,
officials of PSU and other private persons entered into a criminal
conspiracy to cheat the PSU in the matter of award of contract –
Contract granted to one company after resorting to limited/restricted
tenders causing wrongful loss to the PSU – Illegalities alleged in
the procedure followed for inviting the tender – FIR lodged u/s.
120B r/w ss. 193, 420, 468, 471 r/w ss. 13 (2) and 13(1)(d) of PC
Act – Final report against accused persons including the public
servants-officers of PSU – Two accused died during trial – Special
judge acquitted one but convicted four – Upheld by the High Court
– On appeal, held: Culpability of the appellants for offences under
the IPC and the PC Act not established and proved – Thus, the
judgment of the Special Court convicting the appellants for various
offences and judgment of the High Court confirming the same set
aside – Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 – s.13.
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973:
s. 197(1) – Prosecution of public servant – Previous sanction
– Requirement of – Executive director of PSU with a view to confer
an unfair and under advantage, went for restricted tender by
dictating the names of four bogus companies along with the name
of the one chosen to whom the contract was awarded – Allegations
that he got into a criminal conspiracy with others to commit offences
– He retired five years before filing of the final report – Previous
sanction u/s. 197 not sought for prosecuting the executive director
– Correctness of – Held: Prosecution ought to have taken previous
sanction in terms of s. 197(1) for prosecuting the executive director
for the offences under the IPC – Sanction is required not only for
acts done in the discharge of official duty but also required for any
act purported to be done in the discharge of official duty and/or
[2023] 10 S.C.R. 11
11
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
12
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2023] 10 S.C.R.
act done under colour of or in excess of such duty or authority – If
the very same act of the co-conspirators fell in the realm of
commercial wisdom, it is impossible that the act of executive director,
as part of the criminal conspiracy, fell outside the discharge of his
public duty, so as to disentitle him for protection u/s.197(1) – His
act, even if alleged to be lacking in bona fides or in pursuance of a
conspiracy, would be an act in the discharge of his official duty,
making the case come within the parameters of s. 197(1).
ss. 306, 307 – Tender of pardon to approver – Procedure
prescribed by s. 306(4)(a) – Compliance of – On facts, the additional
Chief Judicial Magistrate granted pardon at the stage of
investigation and the prosecution examined him before the Special
Court – Plea that the approver, in cases covered by s.306(1), should
be examined twice, once as court witness before committal and then
as prosecution witness at the time of trial – Held: When the Special
Court chooses to take cognizance, the question of the approver
being examined as a witness in the court of the Magistrate as
required by s. 306 (4)(a) does not arise – Object of examining an
approver twice, is to ensure that the accused is made aware of the
evidence against him even at the preliminary stage, so as to enable
him to effectively cross examine the approver during trial, bring
out contradictions and show him to be untrustworthy – On facts,
the object stood fulfilled – Magistrate who recorded the confession
examined him and the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate who
granted pardon also examined – Thus, no violation of the procedure
prescribed by s. 306(4)(a) – Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 –
s.5.
Allowing the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1. The judgment of the Special Court convicting
the appellants for various offences under the Penal Code and the
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, and the judgment of the High
Court confirming the same are set aside. [Para 139][72-H; 73-A]
2.1 A-1 to A-4, being officers of a company were ‘public
servants’ within the definition of the said expression under Section
21 of the IPC and under Section 2(c)(iii) of the PC Act. Therefore,
there is a requirement of previous sanction both under Section
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
13
197(1) of the Code and under Section 19(1) of

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.