R. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR versus THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT VIGILANCE POLICE & ANR.

Citation: [2011] 3 S.C.R. 1054 · Decided: 28-03-2011 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: P. SATHASIVAM · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
[2011] 3 S.C.R. 1054 
R. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR 
v. 
THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT VIGILANCE POLICE & 
ANR. 
(Criminal Appeal No. 792 of 2011) 
MARCH 28, 2011 
[P. SATHASIVAM AND DR. 8.S. CHAUHAN, JJ.] 
Sree Sankaracharya University of Sanskrit Act, 1994: 
C s.50(2)- Protection under- Criminal proceedings against the 
appellant-Vice-Chancel/or of the University - Requirement of 
previous sanction of the Syndicate of the University - Held: 
Any act done by the Officers of the University in good faith is 
protected u/s.50(2) - Vice-Chancellor of the University, is ont:J 
D of the Officers of the University in terms of s.23 of the Act -
s.50(2) is, therefore, applicable to the appellant and in respect 
of any act done under the Act or Statutes or Ordinances or 
Regulations, no suit or prosecution or other proceeding could 
be initiated against him without the previous sanction of the 
E Syndicate - Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 s.13(1)(d) -
Penal Code, 1860 - ss. 120-B and 463. 
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: s.239 - Discharge 
application - Allegation that appellant-Vice-Chancel/or of the 
University obtained pecuniary advantage and caused 
F corresponding wrongful loss to the University- FIR - Charge-
sheet filed after 8-112 years - Application for discharge -
Held: In the absence of previous sanction of the Syndicate 
of the University which is mandatory in nature, the prosecution 
could not be launched against the appellant- Delay of 8-112 
G years in filing charge-sheet was also not explained - Even 
otherwise, there was no mention in the FIR or in the charge-
sheet that the appellant had made any personal gain in the 
transaction - The FIR stated that the appellant had obtained 
a pecuniary advantage of around Rs. 59,51,5431- whereas in 
H 
1054 
R. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR v. THE DY. S.P. 
1055 
VIGILANCE POLICE 
the charge-sheet, it came down to less than 5 per cent of the 
A 
original estimate, nearly, Rs. 2, 68, 3581- - There was no 
mention in the charge-sheet about the huge difference in the 
calculation of the loss between the FIR and the charge-sheet 
- Moreover, in view of sincere and speedy actions. taken by 
the appellant as Vice-Chancellor, Government had decided 
B 
earlier to withdraw the criminal proceedings against the 
appellant - In terms of s. 114 of Evidence Act, 1872, 
presumption can be drawn that the Government had taken 
conscious decision of exonerating the appellant and there 
was no reason to doubt integrity of the appellant - Even on c 
merits, records depicted that the appellant had not caused any 
loss to the government by his actions - Thus, appellant made 
out a case for discharge from the criminal proceedings - Sree 
Sankaracharya University of Sanskrit Act, 1994 - Evidence 
Act, 1872 -s.114. 
D 
The appellant was appointed as Special Officer for 
creating the first Sanskrit University in the State of Kerala. 
For the said purpose, land of 42.5 acres was acquired. 
The land so acquired consisted of low lying and water 
logged fields and any development work could be started 
E 
only after filling up land with earth. The appellant got the 
land filled with earth. An amount of Rs.5925 was spent 
for filling up of every one cent of the water logged land. 
From 1.1.1994 to 30.6.1996, the appellant was appointed 
as Vice Chancellor of the University. On 18.12.1996, FIR 
F 
was registered against the appellant and four other 
persons under Section 13(2) r.w. Section 13(1)(d) of the 
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and Sections 120-B 
and 463, IPC. The allegation against the appellant was that 
the work of filling of earth in the land acquired for the 
G 
University \i'lS done in an irregular manner and the 
appellant obtained a pecuniary advantage of 
Rs.59,51,5431- with the contractors thereby causing 
corresponding wrongful loss to the University. Charge-
sheet was filed in the Court of the Enq1,1ry Commissioner 
H 
1056 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2011] 3 S.C.R. 
A and Special Judge, eight and a half years after the F.l.R. 
and without obtaining the previous sanction of the 
Syndicate of the University under Section 50(2) of the 
Sree Sankaracharya University of Sanskrit Act, 1994. In 
the F.l.R., the pecuniary loss caused to the University was 
8 indicated as Rs.59,51,543/- whereas in the charge-sheet 
it came down to less than 5% of the originally estimated 
amount, i.e., Rs.2,68,358/-. The appellant filed an 
application under Section 239 Cr.P.C. for discharge. The 
Special Judge dis

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