STATE OF GUJARAT versus K. V. JOSEPH ETC.

Citation: [2000] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 485 · Decided: 09-11-2000 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: U.C. BANERJEE, K.G. BALAKRISHNAN · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

STATE OF GUJARAT 
A 
v. 
K. V. JOSEPH ETC. 
NOVEMBER 9, 2000 
[UMESH C BANERJEE AND K.G. BALAKRISHNAN, JJ.] 
B 
Judgment-Judgment of High Court challenged by State Government-
contention that portion of directions contained in the judgment was not 
warranted and was without jurisdiction and judgment using strong language- C 
Held, the relevant portion of the directions is rather harsh and the same 
stands expunged from the judgment-:--However, findings of the High Court are 
not disturbed and the judgment shall stand m94ified accordingly. 
Vigilance Manual 
Para 4-High Court declaring para 4 as ultra vires being in direct 
conflict with Ss. 7, I 3, I 7 and I 9 of the. Prevention of Corruption Act-No 
notice given to Advocate General of the State-Held, the language used in 
D 
the judgment is rather strong-Restraint and use of temperate language 
ought to be the basic criteria in the judicial approach-By reason of the 
factum of non-availability of any opportunity to any of the parties, the E 
judgment cannot be sustained and is set aside-However, considering the 
nature of a/legations and by reason of involvement of high Public Officials, 
it would be expedient to refer. the matter to Central i;igilance Commission 
for taking appropriate steps in accordance with la~Judicial Proprie~ 
Natural Justice. 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. 60 l 
of 1997. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 17.3.97 of the Gujarat High Court 
in Misc. Cr!. A. No. 471/97 in Cr!. A. No. 803of1995. 
WITH 
Criminal Appeal No. 602 of 1997. 
K.N. Rawal, Additional Solicitor General, Ms. Hemantika Wahi, Ms. 
485 
F 
G 
H 
486 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2000] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 
A Smita Inna, P. Parmeswaran, Ms. Anil Katiyar, Vimal Chandra Dave, San jay R. 
Hegde and Satya Mitra for the appearing parties. 
The following Order of the Court was delivered : 
The State of Gujarat is in appeal against the judgments of the Gujarat 
B High Court in these appeals. Whereas in Criminal Appeal No 601/97, judgment 
in its entirety has been challenged as totally without jurisdiction, the Criminal 
Appeal No. 80211997, however, is having a limited challenge and the main 
grievance pertains to certain directions. For convenience sake the Criminal 
Appeal No. 602/1997 is taken up first for hearing. 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
Mr. K.N. Rawal, the learned Additional Solicitor General of India 
contended that the directions contained at paragraph 26. l at page 68-69 of 
the paperbook in particular the last few lines are not only unwarranted but 
wholly without jurisdiction. For convenience sake the same is set out 
hereinbelow:-
" ........... .In fact, after registering the offence, sanction must be 
obtained within one month or at the most within two months, and 
thereafter, the chargesheet should be filed within fifteen days. If 
round about three months if the chargesheet is not filed, Director 
General, Anti-Corruption Bureau should call for necessary explanation 
and take appropriate departmental action against the concerned 
Investigation Officer and also must request the concerned departmental 
head to· grant sanction immediately. The concerned sanctioning 
authority from the date of the receipt of papers shall grant sanction 
within two months failing which he would be liable for the contempt 
proceedings of this Court in absence of reasonable explanation. It will 
also be a duty of the trial court to see that if it come across any 
belated granting of sanction and thereafter filing of the chargesheet, 
appropriate observations are made against the concerned officials by 
forwarding a copy of his judgment and order at the highest to Secretary 
level. Incidentally, it may also be stated that some of the learned PPs 
in charge of Corruption case do not cite Judgment of this Court and 
Apex Court in favour of the prosecution. This is too sad!!.." 
The learned Additional Solicitor General highlighting the initiation of 
contempt proceedings in the absence of reasonable explanation from the 
sanctioning authoFity in the event of there being a delay of two months, 
contended that judicial proceedings ought not to prompt the judicial officers 
\ 
H to apprehend things and pass orders on apprehensions. It has further been 
STATE OF GUJARAT v. K.V. JOSEPH ETC. 
487 
contended that as a matter of fact adaptation of procedure as above would A 
not only denegrate the Judiciary itself but the confidence reposed by the 
people to the Judiciary would be shaken and resultant
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.