LexSTATE OF M.P. versus RAM MANOHAR PANDEY
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B [2014) 11 S.C.R. 268 STATE OF M.P. v. RAM MANOHAR PANDEY (Criminal Appeal No. 2547 of 2014) DECEMBER 09, 2014 [SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA AND PRAFULLA C. PANT, JJ.] • Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - s. 19 - Previous c sanction necessary for prosecution - Sanction for prosecuting respondent-public servant - Refusal of by the Municipal Corporation and thereafter, by the State, while the respondent was in service - Respondent discharged by the court of competent jurisdiction - Despite superannuation of D respondent from service, fresh cha/Ian filed by the prosecution against respondent - Rejection of the application for discharge by the trial court - Revision petitions thereagainst, dismissed by the High Court-Applications uls. 19 before the Special Court also dismissed - However, revision petition E thereagainst allowed by the Division Bench - On appeal, held: Not a fit case to grant the relief claimed by the State. Dismissing the appeals, the Court HELD: The parliament should consider the F constitutional imperative of Article 14 enshrining the rule of law wherein "due process of law" has been read into by introducing a time-limit in Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 for its working in a reasonable manner. However, in view of the facts including the fact G that the State refused to grant sanction while the respondent was in service and he was discharged by the Court of competent jurisdiction earlier and in view of the decision of this Court in the case of *Chittarajan Das that H 268 • STATE OF M.P. v. RAM MANOHAR PANDEY 269 when sanction sought is refused by the competent A authority while public servant was in service, he cannot be prosecuted later after his retirement notwithstanding the fact that no sanction for prosecution under the Prevention of Corruption Act is necessary after retirement of the public servant, it is not a fit case to grant the relief B claimed by the State. [Para 25, 27) [277-A, 8, D, E] *Chittaranjan Das v. State of Orissa 2011 (7) SCR 836 : (2011) 7 sec 167 - relied on. State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Sheet/a Sahai and Others C 2009 (12) SCR 1048 : (2009) 8 SCC 617; Subramanian Swamy vs. Manmohan Singh and Another 2012 (3) SCR 52: (2012) 3 sec 64 - referred to. Case Law Reference: 2009 (12) SCR 1048 Referred to 2012 (3) SCR 52 Referred to 2011 (7) SCR 836 Referred to Para 13 Para 13 Para 27 D CRIMINALAPPELLATEJURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal E No. 2547 of 2014. From the Judgment & Order dated 05.11.2012 of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh Bench at Indore in Criminal Revision No. 1361of2011. WITH Criminal Appeal No. 2548 of 2014. F Musharra Chaudhary, Ayesha Chaudhary, C.D. Singh for the Appellant. G Sushil Kumar Jain, Abhinav Gupta, Ankita Gupta, Pratibha Jain for the Respondent. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by H 270 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014] 11 S.C.R.. A SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA, J. 1. Leave granted 2. These appeals have been preferred by the appellant- State of Madhya Pradesh against the common order dated 5th B November, 2012 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Bench at Indore. By ~he common impugned order, the Division Bench allowed the two revision petitions preferred by respondent-Ram Manohar Pandey and quashed the order dated 16th September, 2011 passed by the c Special Judge (under Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988), Ujjain in Special Case No.16 of 2004 with respect to Crime No.66 of 1993 and Special Case No. 17 of 2004 with respect to Crime No. 67 of 1993. 3. The respondent- who was appointed on the post of a D Sub-Engineer w.e.f. 1.7.1972 in the Medical Council, Biaora, District Rajgarh was initially promoted to the higher post of Assistant Engineer and thereafter to the post of Executive Engineer by resolution dated 9th May, 1988. He was placed on deputation with Municipal Corporation, Ujjain from 1991- E 1993 as City Engineer. While he was working there, certain charges of corruption were made against him. The Dy. S.P, Special Police Establishment Lokayukta, Ujjain filed complaints against the respondent which were registered as Crime Nos. 66 of 1993 and 67 of 1993 for offence under Section 13(1 )(d) F read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. 4. In the year 2004, when sanction was sought for prosecuting the respondent and some others, the Municipal G Corporation, Ujjain by res
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.