STATE OF BIHAR & ORS. versus RAJMANGAL RAM

Citation: [2014] 4 S.C.R. 602 · Decided: 31-03-2014 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: P. SATHASIVAM · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
[2014] 4 S.C.R. 602 
STATE OF BIHAR & ORS. 
v. 
RAJMANGAL RAM 
(Criminal Appeal No. 708 of 2014) 
MARCH 31, 2014 
[P. SATHASIVAM, CJI AND RANJAN GOGOi, JJ.] 
CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE 1973: 
c 
s. 465 rlw s. 197 Cr.P.C. ands. 19 (3) rlw s.19 (1) of PC 
Act - Interference with criminal prosecution on the ground of 
defects/omissions/errors in the order granting sanction for 
prosecution - Held: Both s. 465, Cr.P.C. ands. 19 (3) of PC 
Act make it clear that any effor, omission or iffegularity in the 
0 
grant of sanction will not affect any finding, sentence or order 
passed by a competent court unless in the opinion of the 
court, a failure of justice has been occasioned - In the instant 
case, even assuming that Law Department was not competent 
to accord sanction, it was still necessary for High Court to 
E reach the conclusion that a failure of justice had occasioned 
-- Such a finding is conspicuously absent - Order of High 
Court interdicting the criminal prosecution of respondents is 
set aside - Prevention of Coffuption Act, 1988 - s. 19 (3) rlw 
s. 19 (1). 
F 
The instant appeals were filed by the State 
Government against two orders passed by the High Court 
holding that the Law Department of the State was not 
competent to accord sanction for prosecution of the 
respondents under the Penal Code, 1860 as well as the 
G Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, resultantly, 
interdicting the criminal proceedings instituted against 
the respondents. 
The question for consideration before the Court 
H 
602 
STATE OF BIHAR & ORS. v. RAJMANGAL RAM 
603 
was: whether a criminal prosecution ought to be 
A 
interfered with by the High Court at the instance of an 
accused who sought mid-course relief from the criminal 
charges levelled against him on grounds of defects/ 
omissions or errors in the order granting sanction to 
prosecute including errors of jurisdiction to grant such 
B 
sanction. 
Allowing the appeals, the Court 
HELD: 1.1 Keeping in view the object behind the 
requirement of grant of sanction to prosecute a public c 
servant, the provisions in this regard either under the 
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 or the Prevention of 
Corruption Act, 1988 are designed as a check on 
frivolous, mischievous and unscrupulous attempts to 
prosecute an honest public servant for acts arising out o 
of due discharge of duty and also to enable him to 
efficiently perform the wide range of duties cast on him 
by virtue of his office. The test, therefore, always is-
whether the act complained of has a reasonable 
connection with the discharge of official duties by the 
government or the public servant. If such connection 
exists and the discharge or exercise of the governmental 
function is, prima facie, founded on the bonafide 
judgment of the public servant, the requirement of 
sanction will be insisted upon so as to act as a filter to 
keep at bay any motivated, ill-founded and frivolous 
prosecution against the public servant. However, 
realising that the dividing line between an act in the 
discharge of official duty and an act that is not, may, at 
times, get blurred thereby enabling certain unjustified 
claims to be raised also on behalf of the public servant G 
so as to derive undue advantage of the requirement of 
sanction, speci~ic provisions have been incorporated in 
E 
F 
s. 19(3) of the Prevention of Corruption Act as well as in 
s. 465 of the Code of Criminal Procedure which, inter alia, 
make it clear that any error, omission or irregularity in the 
H 
604 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2014] 4 S.C.R. 
A grant of sanction will not affect any finding, sentence or 
order passed by a competent court unless in the opinion 
of the court, a failure of justice has been occasioned. This 
is how the balance is sought to be struck. [Para 5] [607-
B-H] 
B 
1.2 In a situation where under both the enactments 
any error, omission or irregularity in the sanction, which 
would also include the competence of the authority to 
grant sanction, does not vitiate the eventual conclusion 
in the trial including the conviction and sentence, unless 
C of course a failure of justice has occurred, at the 
intermediary stage a criminal prosecution cannot be 
nullified or interdicted on account of any such error, 
omission or irregularity in the sanction order without 
arriving at the satisfaction that a failure of justice has also 
D been occ,asioned. [Para 7] [610-F-G] 
State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Virender Kumar Tripathi 
2009 (7) SCR

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