ROMESH LAL JAIN versus NAGINDER SINGH RANA AND ORS.

Citation: [2005] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 868 · Decided: 28-10-2005 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.B. SINHA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

cites 2 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
ROMESH LAL JAIN 
v. 
NAGINDER SINGH RANA AND ORS. 
OCTOBER 28, 2005 
[S.B. SINHA AND R.V. RAVEENDRAN, JJ.) 
Penal Code, 1860-Sec. 409, 167, 218, 419, 420, 465, 468, 471-
Cr.P.C.-Sec. 197-13(2)-Sanction for prosecution against a public servant--
C For commission of an offence-sanction against Inspector of Police granted 
by Dy. Inspector General of Police-Held, sanction valid-Further Held, no 
sanction is required from State Government for prosecution under Sec. 197 
Cr.P.C 
D 
Words and Phrases- public order-Meaning of-Explained. 
The First Respondent was a Sub Inspector. He lodged a First Information 
Report against Mis. Jain Gas Agency, a proprietary concern of the son of the . · 
Appellant, under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, wherein it was 
alleged that on an inspection made in its office and godown several 
irregularities were found and furthermore some gas cylinders were said to 
E have been sold in black market. The Appellant, who is also the District 
Convener, LPG Dealers Association, sent a letter to the Inspector General of 
Police, Internal Vigilance, Punjab, stating that the case registered was false, 
that while seizing 767 cylinders, the First Respondent had shown that only 
743 cylinder were seized and thereby misappropriated 24 cylinders and that 
the First Respondent had demanded and taken a sum of Rs. 20,000 in cash 
F from the Appellant by way of illegal gratification by putting pressure and.the 
said amount was paid to him in order to avoid maltreatment at his hands. The 
payment so made was shown in the cash book and the ledger maintained by 
Mis. Jain Gas Agency. The prosecution against the said Mis Jain Gas Agency 
under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act was found to be false and 
G a final report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. was submitted for cancellation of 
the case which was accepted on 11.8.1993. 
H 
On the basis of the allegations contained in Appellant's letter, a First 
Information Report was lodged. An untraced report was sent to the Court of 
868 
ROMESH LAL JAIN v. NAGINDER SINGH RANA 
869 
Special Judge, Faridkot, who did not agree therewith and opined that the A 
statements of the witnesses recorded during investigation supported the case 
of the complainant and the matter required judicial verdict The Special Judge, 
therefore, directed the Investigating Officer to obtain sanction for the 
prosecution against the Respondent herein and submit a final report. This 
order was challenged by the First Respondent in a Criminal Revision before 
the Session Judge wherein it was observed that no cognizance could be taken B 
by the Special Judge without obtaining proper sanction and it would be open 
to the Sanctioning Authority to consider the same. The Deputy Inspector 
General of Police, Jallandhar Range, issued an order of sanction. The said 
order of sanction was withdrawn by the State. The Special Judge directed the 
Investigating Officer to submit a final report within one month. 
C 
A charge-sheet was filed and cognizance of the offence was taken. The 
First Respondent filed an application before the High Court under Section 
482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, inter alia, praying for quashing 
of the First Information Report dated 06.05.1994 and the proceedings 
subsequent thereto including the report submitted under Section 173 Cr. P.C. D 
which had been filed without obtaining sanction. 
It was observed : (i) The earlier order attained finality and, thus, any 
contention contrary thereto or inconsistent therewith would amount to 
reviewing thereof which is impermissible in law; The State having refused to 
grant a sanction and as the accusations made against the Respondent related E 
to discharge of his duties as Investigating Officer, sanction of prosecution 
was mandatory; The First Information Report cannot be quashed as it cannot 
be said that the allegations made therein do not disclose any offence against 
him. On the aforementioned grounds, the order of the Special Judge taking 
cognizance and summoning the Respondent without sanction of the competent p 
authority for his prosecution was quashed. 
In appeal before this Court Appellant contended that : (i) The High Court 
committed a manifest error in passing the impugned judgment insofar as it 
failed and/or neglected to determine the question as to whether the act 
complained of had a reasonable nexus with the official duty of the Respondent; G 
(ii) The High Court misread and misinterp

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