LexARUN KUMAR AGGARWAL versus STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A 8 [2011) 10 S.C.R. 850 ARUN KUMAR AGGARWAL v. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND ORS. (Criminal Appeal Nos.1706-08 of 2011) SEPTEMBER 2, 2011 [G.S. SINGHVI AND H.L. DATTU, JJ.] Judgment/Order: c Obiter dictum - Allegation of corruption against government servants - Police after conducting investigation exonerated accused of all the charges and submitted final closure report uls.169, Cr.P.C. to the Special Judge- Special Judge rejected the closure report - The order of the Special D Judge stated that there were sufficient grounds to take cognizance for the offence and matter may be taken up seeking necessary sanction to prosecute them - High Court quashed the order of the Special Judge by treating the operative portion of the order of Special Judge as direction · E issued to the sanctioning authority to sanction the prosecution of respondent nos.2 to 4 - On appeal, held: In the facts and circumstances of instant case, the refusal of the Special Judge to accept the final closure report submitted by Lokayukta Police was the only ratio decidendi of the Order - The other part of the Order dealing with the initiation of F Chai/an proceedings could not be treated as the direction issued by the Special Judge - The wordings of the Order clearly suggested that it was not in the nature of the command or authoritative instruction - The Order was also not specific or clear in order to direct or address any authority or body to G perform any act or duty - Therefore, it cannot be treated as the direction issued by the Special Judge but only Obiter Dictum' or mere passing remark made by the Special Judge, which only amounted to expression of his personal view - Therefore, this portion of the Order dealing with Chai/an H 850 ARUN KUMAR AGGARWAL v. STATE OF MADHYA 851 PRADESH AND ORS. proceeding, was neither relevant, pertinent nor essential, while A deciding the actual issues which were before the Special Judge and1 therefore, cannot be treated as the part of the Judgment of the Special Judge - Therefore, there was no occasion for the High Court to interfere with the Order of the Special Judge. B Direction issued by the Court - Scope and nature of - Held: Direction issued by the Court is in the nature of a command or authoritative instruction which contemplates the performance of certain duty or act by a person upon whom it has been issued - Direction should be specific, simple, clear C and just and proper depending upon the facts and circumstances of the case but it should not be vague or sweeping. Obiter dictum - Scope and nature of - Held: Is a mere D observation or remark made by the court while deciding the actual issue before it - The mere casual statement or observation which is not relevant, pertinent or essential to decide the issue in hand does not form the part of the judgment of the Court and has no authoritative value - The E expression of the personal view or opinion of the Judge is just a casual remark made whilst deviating from answering the actual issues pending before the Court - These casuai remarks are considered or treated as beyond the ambit of the authoritative or operative part of the judgment. F Respondent nos.2 to 4 were the government servants. The appellant made a complaint to the Lokayukta that respondent nos.2 to 4 had entered into sale transactions which had resulted in loss of Rs.4 crores to the government. The FIR was registered against G respondent nos.2 to 4 under Sections 13(1-d) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and Section 120-B, IPC. A criminal case was registered against respondent nos.2 to 4 in the court of Special Judge. However, th~ sanction of the Government was necessary H 852 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 10 S.C.R. A as mandated by Section 19 of the Act in order to prosecute the said respondents. The police after conducting the investigation exonerated respondent nos.2 to 4 of all the charges leveled against them and submitted final closure report under Section 169, Cr.P.C. 8 to the Special Judge. The Special Judge rejected the closure report. It was held in the order of the Special Judge that prima facie the respondents-accused entered into conspiracy and caused financial loss to government and there were sufficient grounds to take cognizance for C the offence. The ord.er further read that all the accused persons working as Government servant while discharging their government dutie
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.