LexAJOY ACHARYA versus STATE BUREAU OF INV. AGAINST ECO. OFFENCE
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2013] 9 S.C.R. 457 AJOY ACHARYA v. STATE BUREAU OF INV. AGAINST ECO. OFFENCE (Criminal Appeal No. 1454 of 2013 etc.) SEPTEMBER 17, 2013. [P. SATHASIVAM, CJI AND JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR, J.) Code of Civil Procedure, 1973: s. 197 read with s.239 CrPC and s.19 of P.C. Act - Previous sanction for prosecution of public servant - Appellant, an /AS, holding offices of Industries Commissioner A B c in State Government and a nominee Director of MPS/DC - Misuse of position by appellant while discharging his 0 responsibilities as a nominee Director of MPS/DC - Prosecution of - Held: The Governor under Clause 89 of Memorandum and Articles of Association of MPS/DC has absolute discretion to nominate anyone suitable as per his wisdom, as nominee Director of MPS/DC and is also vested E with absolute discretion to remove a nominee Director - Participation of appellant in the meeting of the Board of Directors of MPS/DC was not on account of his holding the office of Industries Commissioner, Government of Madhya Pradesh, nor was it on account of his being a member of /AS cadre - Therefore, sanction if required, ought to have been obtained from the Governor of the State - However, since appellant was not holding the public office which he is alleged F to have abused, when the first charge sheet was filed, there was no need to obtain any sanction before proceeding to prosecute him for the offences f111eged against him. G s.197 - Previous sanction for prosecution of public servant - Held: Sanction is essential only if, at the time of 457 H 458 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2013] 9 S.C.R. A taking cognizance, accused was still holding the public office which he allegedly abused. s. 197 - Previous sanction for prosecution of public servant - Plurality of offices held by public servant - Held: If 8 an accused holds a plurality of offices, sanction is essential only at the hands of the competent authority entitled to remove him from service of the office which he had allegedly misused. s. 197 - Previous sanction for prosecution of public C servant - Public servant, a nominee Director of MPSDIC - Plea that such nominee Director was not incharge of conduct of business of MPSD/C nor was he responsible for its day to day activities - Held: Accusation implicating the appellant, is directly attributable to him as nominee Director of MPS/DC D - His culpability lies in the mischief of passing the resolution in question - Implementation of said resolution is the consequential effect of the said mischief. By a resolution dated 19.4.1995, the Board of E Directors of the Madhya Pradesh State Industrial Development Corporation (MPSIDC) authorized its Managing Director, to extend short term loans including inter-corporate deposits (ICDs) out of the surplus funds with the MPSIDC, on suitable terms and conditions. It was alleged that the resolution dated 19.4.1995 was passed F in disregard of an earlier decision· taken in the Cabinet Review Meeting held on 28.1.1994, and the resolution dated 31.1.1994 passed by Board of Directors of MPSIDC, that the MPSIDC would not extend financial assistance to industries. The petitioner, a member of the IAS cadre, G while holding the charge of the office of Industries Commissioner, Government of Madhya Pradesh, was nominated as a Director of the MPSIDC in 1993. He continued as such till 1998. In June 1998, he was transferred as Joint Secretary, Department of Heavy H AJOY ACHARYA v. STATE BUREAU OF INV. AGAINST 459 ECO. OFFENCE Industries, Government of India, whereupon, he ceased A to be on the Board of Directors of the MPSIDC. He had admittedly attended both the meetings held on 28.1.1994 and 31.1.1994. The first charge sheet dated 22.9.2007 was filed in Special Case no. 7 of 2007, and the Special Judge took cognizance thereof. The petitioner filed a petition u/ B s 239 of the CrPC as well as, s.19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 seeking his discharge on the ground, that prosecution had been initiated against him without seeking sanction of the competent authority. The petition was dismissed by the Special Judge on 11.4.2008 c and the criminal revision preferred by him was dismissed by the High Court. In the instant appeal filed by the appellant, the issue for consideration was: whether the participation of the appellant in the meetings, in question was based on his D position as a nominee Director on the Board of Directors o
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.