C.K. JAFFER SHARIEF versus STATE (THROUGH CBI)

Citation: [2012] 10 S.C.R. 1079 · Decided: 09-11-2012 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: P. SATHASIVAM · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

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

Judgment (excerpt)

[2012] 10 S.C.R. 1079 
C.K. JAFFER SHARIEF 
v. 
STATE (THROUGH CBI) 
(Criminal Appeal No. 1804 of 2012) 
NOVEMBER 09, 2012 
[P. SATHASIVAM AND RANJAN GOGOi, JJ.] 
PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION ACT, 1988: 
A 
B 
ss. 13 (1) (d) and 13 (2) - Criminal proceedings against c 
appellant on the a/legation that while he was holding the office 
of Minister, he compelled approval of journey of four persons 
to London in connection with his medical treatment - Held: 
Record indicates that the four persons while in London had 
assisted the appellant in performing certain tasks connected 
0 
with the discharge of his duties as a Minister - It was for the 
Minister to decide on the number and identity of the officials 
and supporting staff to accompany him to London if it was 
anticipated that he would be required to perform his official 
duties while in London - The action of the Minister cannot be 
E 
said to have been actuated by a dishonest intention to obtain 
an undue pecuniary advantage - In the totality of facts, there 
is no reason to allow the prosecution to continue against 
appellant - Criminal proceedings quashed - Constitution of 
India, 1950 - Art. 226 - Code of Cnininal Procedure, 1973 -
&~ 
F 
On the basis of an FIR filed by the Central Bureau of 
Investigation (CBI), a case was registered against the 
appellant, the then Railway Minister, for offences 
punishable uls 13 (2) read with s. 13 (1) (d) of the 
G 
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, on the allegations that 
he had dishonestly made the Managing Directors of Rail 
India Technical & Economic Services Ltd (RITES) and 
Indian Railway Construction Co. Ltd. (IRCON) to approve 
1079 
H 
1080 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2012] 10 S.C.R. 
A the journeys of four persons (one Addi. P.S. to Railway 
Minister, two Stenographers and one domestic help), to 
London in connection with his medical treatment. The 
investigating agency submitted its report. The trial court 
took cognizance of the offences. The application filed by 
B the accused seeking discharge was rejected by the trial 
court by its order dated 27.1.2010. He the moved the High 
Court under Art. 226 of the Constitution read with s. 482 
Cr.P.C. for setting aside the order dated 27.1.2010 and for 
quashing the criminal proceedings. The High Court 
c declined to interfere. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1.1. It cannot be said that the only issue raised 
by the appellant before the High Court was with regard 
D to the absence of sanction for the impugned prosecution. 
Before the High Court two reliefs had been prayed for by 
the appellant, namely, interference with the order of the 
trial court passed on 27.01.2010 as well as for quashing 
of the criminal proceeding. Therefore, this Court is of the 
E view that the appellant having raised issues concerning 
the validity of the proceeding as a whole on the ground 
that ex facie no offence is disclosed, it is open for the 
appellant to raise the said question in the instant appeal. 
[Para 12] [1086-C-D-E-F] 
F 
1.2. A bare reading of the provisions of s.13(i)(d) the 
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 would go to show that 
the offence contemplated therein is committed, if a public 
servant obtains for himself or any other person any 
valuable thing or pecuniary advantage by corrupt or 
G illegal means; by abusing his position as public servant 
or without any public interest. In the instant case, the 
appellant besides working as the Minister of Railways 
was the Head of the two PSUs in question at the relevant 
time. The record indicates that the four persons while in 
H London had performed certain tasks to assist the Minister 
C.K. JAFFER SHARIEF v. STATE (THROUGH CBI} 1081 
in the discharge of his public duties. Therefore, the 
A 
appellant cannot be construed to have adopted corrupt 
or illegal means or to have abused his position as a 
public servant to obtain any valuable thing or pecuniary 
advantage either for himself or for any of the said four 
persons. As a Minister, it was for the appellant to decide 
B 
on the number and identity of the officials and supporting 
staff who should accompany him to London if it was 
anticipated that he would be required to perform his 
official duties while in London. The said decision cannot 
be said to be actuated by a dishonest intention to obtain c 
an undue pecuniary advantage. That dishonest intention 
is the gist of the offence u/s. 13(1 )(d) is implicit in the 
words used i.e. corrupt or illegal means and ab

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