LexSRI YERNENI RAJA RAMCHANDER @ RAJABABU versus STATE OF AP. & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2009] 12 S.C.R. 494 A SRI YERNENI RAJA RAMCHANDER @ RAJABABU B v. STATE OF AP. & ORS. (Criminal Appeal Nos. 1414-1415 of 2009 etc.) AUGUST 4, 2009 [S.B. SINHA AND DEEPAK VERMA, JJ.] Code of Criminal Procedure, 19 73 - s. 321 - Prosecution of member of Legislative Assembly u/s 420, 463, C 468 and 471 rlw s. 120 B /PC - Application for withdrawal of prosecution failed - Matter referred to Ethics Committee of State Legislature - Committee recommending withdrawal of prosecution - Application for withdrawal dismissed by trial court - State as well as the Member filing criminal revision - D Revision dismissed - Writ petition seeking Mandamus declaring the action of the State in protecting the Member as illegal, allowed - On appeal, held: Action on the part of the State suffers from malice on facts - Ethics Committee had no jurisdiction to make recommendation for withdrawal - E Recommendation being unauthorized, the action of the State would attract doctrine of malice in law - State has vitiated doctrine of public trust as it was acting in private interest. Appellant-a member of Legislative Assembly, made several medical claims for himself and his wife and the F same were reimbursed by the State. Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 levelled charges of misappropriation against the appellant on the premise that he had obtained a huge amount on the basis of false and fabricated medical bills. The matter was referred to Ethics Committee of State G Legislature. Appellant tendered apology before the Committee and refunded a sum which he had received for his last claim. The Committee accepted the apology and in view of the refund of the amount, recommended H 494 SRI YERNENI RAJA RAMCHANDER @ RAJABABU 495 v. STATE OF AP. & ORS. for withdrawal of the criminal case pending against the A appellant. Pursuant to recommendation, State issued a Government Order directing the District Collector to direct the Public Prosecutor to withdraw the same. Public Prosecutor, thereafter, filed an application u/s. 321 Cr.P.C. for withdrawal of the case. Trial court dismissed the B application. Earlier attempts for withdrawal had also failed. The State as well as the appellant filed criminal revision petitions. During pendency of the revision petitions, respondent Nos. 3 and 4 filed writ petition in the nature of mandamus declaring the action of the State in c trying to protect the appellant and tampering with the course of justice by getting the prosecution withdrawn, was illegal, unjust, discriminatory and contrary to the doctrine of Rule of Law. High Court allowed the writ petition. Revision petitions were eventually dismissed. D Hence the present appeals. Dismissing the appeals, the Court HELD: In the instant case, the trial court rejected the prayer for withdrawal made on the part of the Public E Prosecutor. The High Court, therefore, could interfere therewith only if an error of law was found to have been committed. Furthermore, an earlier attempt made on the' part of the Public Prosecutor also failed to yield any result. [Para 14] [505-A-B] F Sheonandan Paswan v. State of Bihar and Ors. 1987 (10) sec 288, distingusihed. 2. The Ethics Committee of the Legislature of the ·~ State was empowered to deal with the disciplinary action G or otherwise which may be taken against the Members of the Legislative Assembly. A criminal case against a Member of the Legislative Assembly, ordinarily, should be allowed to be continued on its own merit, particularly, in H 496 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 12 S.C.R. A the light of the facts of the present case wherein the High Court had refused to interfere at the earlier stages of the proceedings. The High Court, in fact, had not only been monitoring the investigation, but also directed the Trial Judge to complete the trial within a period of three B months. The action on the part of the State to issue the Government Order for withdrawing the prosecution despite the earlier orders of the High Court must be considered keeping in view the said factual matrix. [Para 15] [505-B-D] c 3. Even otherwise, the action on the part of the State, suffers from malice on facts as well. The State is the protector of law. When it deals with a public fund, it must act in terms of the procedure established by law. In D respect of public fund, the doctrine of public trust would also be applicable so far as the State and its officers are concerned. It c
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.