STATE BY POLICE INSPECTOR versus T. VENKATESH MURTHY

Citation: [2004] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 279 · Decided: 10-09-2004 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Case Partly allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

ST A TE BY POLICE INSPECTOR 
v. 
T. VENKATESH MURTHY 
SEPTEMBER 10, 2004 
[ARIJIT PASAYAT AND C.K. THAKKER, JJ.] 
Prevention ofCorrupti;n Act, 1988-Section 19 (3) & (4)-Karnataka 
Electricity Board Employees (Classification, Disciplinary Control 
. and Appeal) Regulations, 1987-Sanction for prosecution of a 
public servant-Charges framed and evidence recorded-Trial 
court discharging the accused after finding that sanction granted wa~ 
insufficient-High Court upholding same-On appeal, Held: Mere omission, 
error or irregularity in according sanction for prosecution could not affect 
validity of proceeding unless court records satisfaction that it resulted in 
failure of justice-Same logic applying to appellate and revisional courts 
also-Further, th~ requirement of raising the issue of sanction at the earliest 
opportunity has to be kept in view in deciding about failure of justice. 
Words and phrases-'Failure ofjustice'-Meaning of in the context of 
Section 19 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and Sections 462 and 465 
of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. 
Respondent-accused, a public servant, was being tried for offences 
under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 
1988. After charges had been framed and evidence recorded, in view of 
earlier judgments of High Court, prosecution moved an application 
praying that question relating to sanction for prosecution was to be 
adjudicated first. Undisputedly, sanction was accorded. However, trial 
court referred to Karnataka Electricity Board Employees (Classification, 
Disciplinary Contro~ and Appeal) Regulations, 1987 and held that as the 
sanction was not sufficient to prosecute the respondent, he was entitled 
to be discharged. High Court, on revision, upheld the judgment of trial 
·court. Hence, the present appeal by State. 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
Appellant contended that even if it was conceded that sanction was 
defective, the resp'ondent was not entitled to discharge since it was 
required to be shown as to how any prejudice or failure of justice was 
H 
279 
280 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2004] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 
A 
caused thereby. It was conti!nded further that order of the High Court 
was fodefensible as it was non-reasoned. 
B 
c 
D 
Respondent contended that the sanction was sine-qua-non for 
prosecution, and in absence of same, proceedings could not be continued. 
Partly allowing the appeal, the Court. 
HELD : 1. Neither th~ Trial Court nor the High Court appear to have 
kept in view the requirement of sub-section 3 of section 19 of Prevention of 
Corruption Act, 1988 relating to 'failure of justice'. Merely because there 
is any omission, error or irregularity in the matter of according sanction 
that does not affect the validity of the proceeding unless the court records 
the satisfaction tl~at such error, omission or irregularity has resulted in 
failure of justice. The same logic also applies to the appellate or revisional 
court. The requirement of sub-section (4) about raising the issue, at the 
earliest stage has also not been considered. [285-G, HJ 
2.1. The expression 'failure of justice' is too pliable or facile an 
expression, which could be fitted in any situation of a case. The expression 
'failure of justice' would appear, sometimes, as an etymological 
chameleon. The criminal court, particularly the superior court should 
E 
make a close examination to ascertain whether there was really a failure 
of justice or it is only a camouflage. [284-F] 
Shamnsaheb M Multtani v. State of Karnataka, (2001] 2 SCC 577, 
relied on. 
F 
State of MP. v. Bhooraji and Ors., [2001] 7 SCC 679, referred to. 
G 
H 
Town Investments Ltd. v. Deptt. Of Environment, [1977] 1 ALL E.R. 
813 : (1978) AC 3S9, referred to. 
2.2. Unfortunately the High Court by a practically non-reasoned 
order, confirmed the order passed by the trial judge. The orders are 
therefore, indefensible and set aside. [285-H; 286-A] 
3. It would be appropriate to require the trial court to record 
findings in terms of clause (b) of sub-section (3) and sub-section 4 of 
Section 19. (286-A] 
STATE BY POLICE INSPECTOR v. T.V. MURTHY [PASAYAT, J.] 
281 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. 997 
A 
of 2004. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 14.11.2002 of the Kamataka High 
Court in Cr!. R.P. No. 998 of 2001. 
Sanjay R. Hegde for the Appellant. 
G.V. Chandrashekhara and P.P. Singh for the Respondent. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
ARIJIT PASAYAT,

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