B.S.GORAYA versus U.T. OF CHANDIGARH

Citation: [2007] 8 S.C.R. 458 · Decided: 23-07-2007 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B.S.GORAYA 
-~ 
v. 
U.T. OF CHANDIGARH 
JULY 23, 2007 
B 
[DR. ARIJIT PASA YAT AND S.H. KAPADIA, JJ.] 
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988-s. 19- Sanction before 
·x 
prosecution-Charge-sheet in terms of s. 13 (I) (e) rlw s. 13 (2)-Prior to 
c the date of registration of the case, accused was dismissed from the Government 
service-However he was reinstated later-Application for discharge-On 
!· 
the ground of non-compliance of provision of sanction uls 19, on the plea 
•
that in view of reinstatement, he is deemed io be in service on the relevant 
date-Held: Accused cannot be deemed to be in service on the relevant 
date-Hence not entitled to protection uls 19-A deeming provision is 
D operative only for the purpose for which it has been created and not beyond 
that-Interpretation of Statutes-Legal Fiction. 
--r 
A charge-sheet was filed against the appellant by CBI u/s 13 (1) (e) 
r/w s. 13 (2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. After withdrawing his 
E 
application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing the FIR, he filed an application u/s 
227 Cr.P.C. for discharge. His case was that charge-sheet could not have been 
filed against him without obtaining requisite sanction as at the time of 
registration of the case he was in Army service. His plea was that though on 
the date when the charge-sheet was filed he was not in service due to his 
dismissal prior thereto, but in view of the fact that later he was reinstated, he 
F should be deemed to be in service during the relevant period. Special Judge 
held that protection u/s 19 of the Act was not available to him as he could not 
be deemed to be in Government Service on the relevant date. High Court 
affirmed the order of Special Judge. Hence the present appeal. 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
G 
HELD: 1. The order of the High Court does not suffer from any infirmity 
to warrant any interference. Protection u/s 19 of Prevention of Corruption 
Act, 1988 ~as not available to the appellant. The Deeming provision is operative 
for the purpose for which it has been created and cannot be extended beyond 
~ 
H 
458 
~ 
:::..:, 
;. 
'T 
/ 
B.S. GORA YA v. U. T. OF CHANDIGARH [PASA Y AT, J.] 
459 
the legitimate field. !Paras 10 and 6) 1462-C, 464-A) 
Kalicharan Mahapatrav. Stare ofOrissa, (1998( 6 SCC 411; C.S.T. Uttar 
Pradesh v. Modi Sugar Mills Ltd AIR 1961 SC 1047; Mis. Braithwaite and 
Co.(India) Ltd. v. The Employees' State Insurance Corporation, AIR 1968 
SC 413; Bengal Immunity Co. Ltd. v. State of Bihar and Ors., AIR (1955) SC 
661; The Commissioner of Income Tax, Bombuy City, Bombay v. The 
Elphinstone Spinning and Weaving Mills Co. Ltd., AIR (1960) SC 1016 and 
K.S. Dharmadatan v. Central Government and Ors., 11979) 4 SCC 204, relied 
on. 
State of U.P. v. Mohammad Noah, AIR (1958) SC 86, distinguished. 
Prakash Singh Badal and Anr. v. State of Punjab and Ors., (2007) 1 
sec 1, referred to. 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. 1205 of 
1999. 
From the Judgment & Order dated 29.09.1998 of the High Court of 
Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in Crl. Revision No. 210 of 1998. 
Jawahar Lal Gupta, Nidhi Gupta and Sureshta Bagga for the Appellant. 
B. Dutta, ASG., Vikas Shanna, P. Panneswaran and Sushma Suri for the 
Respondent. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
A 
I 
B 
c 
p 
E 
F 
DR. ARIJIT PASA Y AT, J. 1. Challenge in this appeal is to the order 
passed by a learned Single Judge of the Punjab and Haryana High Court 
dismissing the revision petition filed by the appellant. In the said revision 
challenge was to the order passed by learned Special Judge, Chandigarh 
deciding to frame charge against the appellant in terms of Section 13(2) read 
1 
with Section 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (in short the G 
Act'). 
2. Background facts in a nutshell are as follows: 
A charge sheet was filed against the appellant by the Central Bureau H 
460 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2007] 8 S.C.R. 
A of Investigation Authorities (in short the 'CBI') Chandigarh. After completion 
of the investigation in the case it was registered on 6.8.1990, in tenns of 
Section 13(l)(e) read with Section 13(2) of the Act. An application under 
Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short the 'Code') was 
filed for quashing the said FIR and the same was dismissed as withdrawn on 
11.9.1996 . Liberty was however given to take all the available pleas as and 
B when the same were available. An application under Section 227 of the Code 
was fi

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