STATE OF M.P. versus VIRENDRA KUMAR TRIPATHI

Citation: [2009] 7 S.C.R. 89 · Decided: 27-04-2009 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

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

Judgment (excerpt)

[2009] 7 S.C.R. 89 
STATE OF M.P. 
A 
v. 
VIRENDRA KUMAR TRIPATHI 
Criminal Appeal No. 843 of 2009 
APRIL 27, 2009 
B 
·-
[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, P. SATHASIVAM AND AFTAB 
ALAM, JJ.] 
f 
.,. 
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988: 
ss.13(1)(c) and 13(2) - Allegation of acquired assets c 
disproportionate to the known source - Chargesheet - Prayer 
for discharge at the time of framing of charges on the ground 
that sanction was not accorded by Law Department which was 
required to consult parent department - Trial Court rejected 
• 
the prayer - ·However, High Court quashed the proceedings D 
r 
holding that there was no proper sanction - On appeal, held: 
-
Sanction was given in the name of Governor by Department 
" 
of Law and Legislative Affairs and State Government granted 
approval of the prosecution - Further, High Court failed to 
notice that uls. 19(3) order of Special judge cannot be reversed 
E 
' 
unless there was failure of justice - The stage when this failure · 
is to be established was not reached since case was at framing 
of charge - Whether or not failure has been occassioned was 
to be determined after commencement of the trial and leading 
• 
evidence - Hence High Court's order quashing the proceeding 
... 
cannot be sustained - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 -
F 
~ 
' 
s.482. 
s.17(second proviso) -Authorised officer- Held: Deputy 
Superintendent of Police is authorised to conduct investigation 
into any offence under the Act. 
G 
Prosecution case was that accused while serving as 
t-
Ranger in Forest Department acquired assets dispropor-
tionate to known sources of income. At the time of framing 
charges the accused took the stand that he was liable to 
89 
H 
90 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2009] 7 S.C.R. 
A be discharged as the investigation was not conducted 
by the authorized police officer as required under Section 
17 (second proviso) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 
1988 and that sanction was not accorded in accordance 
with law by the Law Department who was required to 
B consult the parent department of the applicant i.e. Forest 
Department in view of the order dated 9th February, 1988 
of the State Government. 
The trial court held that the investigation was done 
by the authorized police officers i.e. Deputy Superin-
c tendent of Police who had obtained search warrant from 
the CJM; and that under Section 17 of the Act, the Deputy 
Superintendent of police can investigate into any offence 
under the Act being a designated officer. 
The High Court held that the Law and ·Legislative 
., 
D Department was required to consult the parent department 
-.. 
which was necessary as per the circular/order dated 9th 
February, 1988 and, therefore, there was no proper 
,-
sanction. Accordingly, it held that the accused cannot be 
prosecuted on the basis of the sanction of the Law and 
E Legislative Department. It did not express any final 
opinion as far as the exclusion of income aspect is 
concerned. But it upheld the view regarding legality of 
investigation. Hence the appeal. 
• 
>----
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
F 
HELD : 1. A bare perusal of the circular dated 9.2.1988 
shows that before giving appr~val for prosecution, advice 
of the concerned Department was necessary. Undis-
putedly the sanction was given by the Department of Law 
-
and Legislatives Affairs. The State Government granted 
G approval of the prosecution. The sanction was granted 
in the name of the Governor of the State by Additional 
Secretary, Department of Law and Legislative Affairs. The 
advice at the most is an inter-departmental matter. The 
High Court has failed to consider the effect of Section 19(3) 
H of the Prevention of Corruption Act. The said provision 
·' • 
f 
STATE OF MP. V. VIRENDRA KUMAR TRIPATHI 
91 
makes it clear that no finding, sentence or order passed A 
by a Special Judge shall be reversed or altered by a'· court 
of appeal on the ground of absence of for any error, 
omission or irregularity in sanction required under sub-
section (1) of Section 19 unless in the opinion of the Court 
a failure of justice has in fact been occasioned thereby. In 
B 
the instant case there was not even a whisper or pleading 
about any failure of justice. The stage when this failure is 
to be established is yet to be reached since the case is at 
the stage of framing of charge whether or not failure has 
in fact been occasioned was to be determined once the 
trial commenced and evidence was led. That being so the C 
High

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