LexPARKASH SINGH BADAL AND ANR. versus STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
- PARKASH SINGH BADAL AND ANR. v. ST A TE OF PUNJAB AND ORS. DECEMBER 6, 2006 [DR. ARIJIT PASAYA T AND S.H. KAPADIA, JJ.] Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947; s. 6(2)/Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988; ss. 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 13, 15 and 19/Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; ss. 2, 41, 154, 173 and 197: Prosecution of public servant-Protection from-Sanction before prosecution-Necessities of-Held: Principle of immunity protects only those acts of a public servant performed in exercise of function of the Government- A B c But it does not protect criminal acts of a public servant though performed under the colour of authority but in reality performed for its own pleasure/ D benefit-Proiection so given is to protect a responsible public servant against institution of vexatious criminal proceedings for offences allegedly committed by him ·while acting/purporting discharge of official duties-Sanction to prosecute, if granted, confers on Government complete control of prosecution- In terms of Section 197 Cr.P.C., bar on exercise of power by Court to take E cognizance of any offence against public servant is absolute and complete- Protection afforded to public servant available subject to fulfilment of certain conditions-Conditions specified under the provisions are mandatory in nature-Protection available only to those acts/omission purportedly done in exercise of official duties-If act done in course of service but not in discharge of official duties bar to prosecute without sanction from competent F authority not available to public servant-Sanction need not be obtained at the time of lodging of complaint but at any stage of proceedings . Public Servant-Prosecution-Information to Magistrate-Framing of charges-Requirements of-Held: Information/Report to Magistrate sufficient G elaborate details not necessary-At the stage of framing of charges, material available on record need not be analysed minutely-Sanctioning authority need not separately specifY each of offences against accused public servant. Complaint-Misuse of office by public servant-Plea of malafides- Held: Plea ofmalafides not only required to be clearly pleaded but specifically H 197 198 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2006) SUPP. 10 S.C.R. A proved-Merely because the political opponent was the complainant that does not per se lead to such an inference to dismiss the complaint/no notice should be taken thereof-Hence the plea of malafides as raised cannot be maintained in the facts and circumstances of the case. B Constitution of India, 1950; Articles 233 and 234: Appointment of special Judge to a Special Court-High Court- Jurisdiction and power of-Held: In the facts and circumstances of the case, Articles 233 and 234 not attracted C Section I 54 Cr.P.C.-FIR-Legal principles governing registration of a cognizable offence-Discussed Words and Phrases: "Absence of sanction' and 'Invalidity on account of non-application of D mind'-Distinction between-Discussed E Abuse of Office-Test-Requirement of-Discussed. Criminal Misconduct-Requirements of-Discussed in the context of s. 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. 'Failure of justice', 'in the opinion of-Meaning of in the context of sub- section (3) and (4) of s.19 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. 'lncuria'-Meaning of F Public Functionary-Public servant-Abuse of office-Mischief Rule- Invoking of Questions which arose for determination in these appeals were about validity of proceedings initiated against appellant, the then Chief Minister of Punjab and Ors, under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and/or the G Indian Penal Code, 1860; and also as to the necessities of sanction before prosecuting them in terms of s. 197 Cr.P.C. and the legality thereof. ! TJ. Appellants contended that the proceedings were initiated against them on the basis of complaints which were lodged malajide and as an act of political vendetta; that allegations are vague, lack in details and even if accepted at the face value, did not show the commission of any offence; that though the High Court primarily relied on a Constitution Bench decision of this Court in R.S. ..... PARKASH SINGHBADALv. STATE OF PUNJAB 199 . Nayak v. A.R. Antulay, [1984) 2 SCC 183, the said decision was rendered in A the context of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 (Old Act); that the provisions contained in Section 6 thereof are in pari materia to Section 19 of the 1988 Act; the effect of Sec
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.