LALU PRASAD@ LALU PRASAD YADAV versus STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH CBI (AHD) PATNA

Citation: [2006] SUPP. 10 S.C.R. 251 · Decided: 06-12-2006 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

LALU PRASAD@ LALU PRASAD Y ADA V 
v. 
STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH CBI (AHD) PATNA 
DECEMBER 6, 2006 
[DR. ARIJIT PASA VAT AND S.H. KAPADIA, JJ.] 
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988; s.13(J)(e) rlw s.13(2) and 
s.19(l)(b)/Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; ss. 197, 227, 228, 239, 240 
and 245: 
Prosecution of public servant-When not ho/ding the same office which 
he allegedly abused-Sanction to prosecute-Requirements of-Held: Order 
rejecting plea of lack of sanction and jurisdiction required to be passed by 
A 
B 
c 
a speaking order-Sanction of Governor had no sanctity in the eye of law-
Sanction so granted earlier has no validity-It cannot be construed as a case D 
of causus omissus-Cases in which question raised as to recording of reasons 
at the time of framing of charge differs from cases of opinion on the basis of 
which accused discharged-In case of question relating to jurisdiction, reasons 
dealing with jurisdiction required to be recorded-In the facts and 
circumstances of the case, appeals are without merit-Hence dismissed 
Interpretation of Statutes: 
Principles of construction:--8tatute-Casus omissus-Discussed 
E 
Corruption case-Prosecution-Requirement of sanction before 
prosecution-Applicability of s.197 Cr.P. C./s. 19 of Prevention of Corruption F 
Ai:t-Distinction between-Discussed 
In these appeals the basic question raised for determination by this 
Court related to the validity of sanction to prosecute the accused-appellants 
for offence punishable under Section 13(l)(e) read with Section 13(2) of the 
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Sanction has been accorded both under G 
the provisions of Section 19(1 )(b) of the Act and Section 197 of the Code of 
Criminal Procedure, 1973. 
Appellants contended that even though a public servant does not hold 
251 
H 
252 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2006] SUPP. 10 S.C.R. 
A the same office and holds some other office, then also sanction is necessary; 
that the effect of the recommendations made by the Law Commission in its 
4lst report which necessitated sanction in terms of Section 197 of the Code 
extending the protection of sanction for a retired public servant as well should 
have been also extended under Section 6(1) of the Prevention of Corruption 
B Act, 1947 corresponding to Section 19(1) of the Act; that the courts below 
had erroneously come to the conclusion that both in the case of discharge 
and for framing of charge no reasons are necessarily to be recorded; and 
that report of Dr. Bakshi Tekchand Committee which formed the basis of 
inserting Sub-section (2) of Section 6of1947 Act admits of no doubt and the 
same envisages two offices being held by the public servants one at the time 
C of alleged offence and other at the time of taking cognizance. 
Dismissing the appeals, the Court 
HELD: 1.1. The decision in R.S. Nayak case cannot be regarded as a 
binding precedent in respect of the issues which did not relate to the three 
D questions which were required to be decided in that case. The order rejecting 
the plea of lack of sanction and the jurisdiction is required to be passed by a 
speaking order. The Secretary to the Government had no jurisdiction to sign 
the sanction order on the instructions of the Governor.. Therefore, the so-
called sanction of the Governor has no sanctity in the eye of law. There is no 
material to show that the alleged dis-proportionate assets were relatable to a 
E period when wife of the appellant was the Chief Minister. At that time she 
was also either holding the office of MLC or MLA and, therefore, the sanction 
granted has no validity. [255-C, D, E] 
F 
R.S. Nayak v. A.R. Antulay, [1984) 2 SCC 183, held not applicable. 
1.2.The sanctio!'. had been given by the Governor. The prosecution did 
not obtain the sanction separately so far as wife of the appellant is concerned 
as she was only a house wife and not a public servant during the relevant 
period. In the sanction accorded in respect of the appellant, it has been 
expressly mentioned that the acts of his wife amounted to aiding and abetting 
G of commission of offence under Section 13(1)(e) by her husband and she was 
thus liable to be prosecuted for offence punishable under Sections 107 and 
109 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. [255-E, F) 
2.1. Two principles of construction - one relating to causus omissus 
and the other in regard to reading the statute as a whole - appear to be well 
H settled. Under the first principle a causus omissus cannot be supplied by th

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