STATE OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR versus SHAM LAL AND ORS.

Citation: [1996] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 835 · Decided: 10-05-1996 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.S. ANAND, S.B. MAJMUDAR · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

STATE OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR 
v. 
SHAM LAL AND ORS. 
MAY 10, 1996 
[DR. A.S. ANAND AND S.B. MAJMUDAR, JJ.] 
Constitution of India, 1950 : 
Articles 226 and 136-Stay of ciiminal proceedings-F.I.R. against the 
respondent for offence under s.5(2) of Prevention of Com1ption Act, 1988 and 
offences under Jammu and Kashmir State Ranbir Penal Code-W!it petition 
filed in High Court for qu(lshing the F.l.R.-Single Judge while issuing notice, 
granted ex-parte order staying further investigatio/1 till next date-On the next 
A 
B 
c 
date case adjoumed but stay order was vacated-Jn letters patent appeal 
Division Bench of the High Court, without notice to the State Govem:nent, 
directed the Single Judge to reconsider the order appealed and till then stayed D 
the investigation-Held, on the plainest consideration of justice, the Division 
Bench of the High Court was obliged to hear State Govemment before passing 
the order, more so, since the order challenged before the Division Bench was 
passed after hearing the Govemment-Order of the Division Bench staying 
the investigation is not sustainable and is set aside-Investigation shall be E 
expedited. 
Prevention of Corruption Ac~ 1988 : 
S.5(2)--Misappropriation of public money-F.I.R. Investigation-Writ 
petition for quashing investigation-Single Judge initially stayed investigation 
but on next date vacated the stay order-in letters patent appeal, Division 
Bench directing the Single Judge to reconsider the order and till then staying 
the investigation-Held, order of Division Bench not sustainable. 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 
675 of 1996. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 9.8.95 of the Jammu & Kashmir 
High Court in L.P.A. (yV) No. 212 of 1995. 
K.T.S. Tulsi, Additional Solicitor General and Ashok Mathur for the 
F 
G 
Appellants. 
H 
835 
836 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 
A 
R. Sasiprabhu, Ashok K. Mahajan and Ramesh Babu. M.R. (NP) for 
B 
the Respondents. 
The following Order of the Court was delivered : 
Leave granted. 
On discovering that there had been embezzlement worth crores of 
rupees, by way of misapropriation and misutilisation of government funds 
meant for purpose of food grains and other essential commodities by the 
employees of Jammu & Kashmir Cooperative Supply and Marketing 
C Federation Ltd. (JAKFED for short), the Commissioner/Secretary to the 
Government, Agriculture Production Department filed a complaint with 
the Crime Branch of the Police in 1994. FIR 40/1994 came tu be registered 
on the basis thereof. Subsequently, the complaint/FIR was transferred to 
the Vigilance Organisation by the Government and the Vigilance Depart-
ment .registered FIR No. 3/95 on its basis for offences under Section 5(2) 
D PCA and some other offences under RPC and look up the investigation in 
hand. During the preliminary stage of investigation by the Vigilance 
Department, the respondents filed a writ petition in the High Court for 
quashing of FIR 3/95 and as interim relief sought the stay of investigation 
into the criminal case. Notice was issued and the learned single Judge also 
E passed an ex-parte order staying further investigation till the 'next date'. 
The State, appellant herein, filed a counter to the writ petition as well as 
objections to the stay petition. 
On 12.7.95 the writ petition came up for hearing before the learned 
single Judge. Request for adjournment of the case was made on behalf of 
F 
learned counsel for the writ petitioners, which appears to have been 
opposed on behalf of the State. The hearing uf the writ petition was 
adjourned. Since, the earlier stay order was lo lost till the 'next date', 
arguments were) however, heard on the question of extension of the stay 
order. The learned single Judge after taking into account the objections 
G and argun1ents raised at the bar \Vas pleased to refuse extension and he 
vacated the stay order dated 27.5.95 During the course of the order, the 
learned single Judge observed : 
"This is a matter where an unusual relief is being claimed by the 
petitioners for slaying the very investigation in an FIR which 
H 
involves commission of offences under the Prevention of Corrup-
STATEv. SHAM LAL 
837 
tion Act and the Penal Code. Jn my view, the extension of the stay A 
-· 
order passed on 26th May 1995, by which investigation process in 
./ 
~ 
the FIR was order to be stayed, is likely to defeat the ends of 
justice and the purpose for which the FIR was lodged. The

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