LexABHAY SINGH CHAUTALA versus C.B.I
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2011) 10 S.C.R. 949
ABHAY SINGH CHAUTALA
v.
C.B.I.
(Criminal Appeal No. 1257 of 2011)
JULY 04, 2011
[V.S. SIRPURKAR AND T.S. THAKUR, JJ.]
Prevention bf Corruption Act, 1988: s.19 - Interpretation
A
B
of - Previous sanction for prosecution - Appellants were tried
before the Special Judge, CBI for offences u/ss.13{1)(e) and C
13(2) of the Act rlw s.109 /PC - Allegation that while working
as Members of Legislative Assembly they had accumulated
wealth disproportionate to their known sources of income -
However, there was no sanction for prosecution u/s. 19 of the
Act against the appellants - Objection raised regarding the o
absence of sanction - Special Judge held that the allegations
in the charge sheet did not contain the allegation that the
appellants had abused their current office as Member of
Legislative Assembly and, therefore, no sanction was
necessary - High Court upheld the order by placing reliance
E
upon the judgment of this Court in Prakash Singh Badal -
Justification - Plea of appellants that the judgment in Prakash
Singh Badal as also the relied on judgment in A.R. Antulay's
case were not correct and required reconsideration by a Larger
Bench - The appellants contended that the law declared in
A R. Antu/ay was obiter dictum; that the said case was decided
F
per incuriam of s. 6(2) of the Act, as it therein existed and
further that, in effect, the decision in A R. Antt.ilay added a
further proviso to s.19(1) of the Act which was impermissible
- Held: In Antulay's case, the Court held that the relevant date
of sanction would be the date on which the cognizance was
G
taken of the offence and that since the accused in that case
did not continue to hold the office that he had allegedly
abused on the date of cognizance, there was 'no necessity of
949
H
950
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2011] 10 S.C.R.
A granting any sanction -
The Court held so in the most
unequivocal terms - It cannot be said that the question
decided by the Court regarding the abuse of a particular office
and the effects of the accused not continuing with that office
or holding an a/together different office was obiter - In fact, it
8 is on that very basis that the judgment of A.R.Antulay
proceeded -
The decision in Antulay's case has been
followed right up to the decision in Prakash Singh Badal and
even thereafter - The law settled in Antulay's case has stood
the test of time for last over 25 years and as per the maxim
C stare decisis et non quieta movere, it would be better to stand
by that decision and not to disturb what is settled - As regards
the contention that Antulay's case was decided per incuriam,
it is not as ifs. 6(2) of the Act as it then existed, was ignored
or was not referred to therein, in fact, the Bench had very
specifically made a reference to and had interpreted s. 6 as a
D whole - Merely because a concept of doubt is contemplated
in s. 19(2), it cannot mean that the public servant who has
abused some other office than the one he is holding could
not be tried without a sanction - The concept of 'doubt' or
'plurality of office' cannot be used to arrive at a conclusion that
E on that basis, the interpretation of s.19(1) would be different
from that given in Antulay's case or Prakash Singh Badal -
The argument regarding the addition of the proviso must also
fall as the language of the suggested proviso contemplates
a different "post" and not the "office'; which are entirely different
F concepts - It cannot be said that the decision in Antulay's case
and the subsequent decisions require any reconsideration -
Even on merits, there is no necessity of reconsidering the
relevant ratio laid down in Antu/ay's case - The High Court
was absolutely right in relying on the decision in Prakash
G Singh Badal to hold that the appellants had abused entirely
different office or offices than the one which they were holding
on the date on which cognizance was taken and, therefore,
there was no necessity of sanction uls. 19 of the Act - Maxims
- "stare decisis et non quieta movere".
H
ABHAY SINGH CHAUTALA v. C.8.1.
951
The appellants were tried before the Special Judge, A
CBI for offences punishable under Sections 13(1)(e) and
13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act read with
Section 109 of IPC in separate trials. It was alleged that
both the accused-appellants while working as Members
of Legislative Assembly had accumulated wealth B
disproportionate to their knowExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.