STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH versus SHEETLA SAHAI & ORS.

Citation: [2009] 12 S.C.R. 1048 · Decided: 04-08-2009 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.B. SINHA · Disposal: Dismissed
Cited by 2 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
[2009] 12 S.C.R. 1048 
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH 
v. 
SHEETLA SAHAI & ORS. 
(Criminal Appeal No. 1417 of 2009) 
AUGUST 4, 2009 
[S.B. SINHA AND CYRIAC JOSEPH, JJ.] 
CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973: 
Section 197 - Sanction for prosecution - Whether public 
servants act in their official capacity or purport to act in their 
official capacity such action would attract the provisions of 
Section 197 - Thus sanction for prosecution was required to 
be obtained - Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - Sections 
13, 19. 
In this appeal on the basis of the facts of the case 
and contentions raised on both sides, the main question 
that arose for consideration was whether sanction for 
prosecution in terms of Section 197 Cr.P.C. was required 
to be obtained. 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1.1. Criminal conspiracy is an independent 
offence. It is punishable separately. Prosecution, 
therefore, for the purpose of bringing the charge of 
criminal conspiracy read with the relevant provisions of 
the Prevention of Corruption Act was required to 
establish the offence by applying the same legal 
principles which are otherwise applicable for the purpose 
of bringing a criminal misconduct on the part of an 
accused. A criminal conspiracy must be put to action 
inasmuch as so long a crime is generated in the mind of 
an accused, it does not become punishable. What is 
1048 
\' -
-
• 
-< 
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH v. SHEETLA SAHAI 1049 
& ORS. 
necessary is not thoughts, which may even be criminal 
A 
--'-· 
in cli.aracter, often involuntary, but offence would be said 
to have been committed thereunder only when that take 
concrete shape of an agreement to do or cause to be 
done an illegal act or an act which although not illegal by 
illegal means and then if nothing further is done the 
B 
agreement would give rise to a criminal conspiracy. 
[Paras 50 and 51] [1078-C-F] 
1.2. What is necessary is to show meeting of minds 
.. ,, 
of two or more persons for doing or causing to be done 
an illegal act or an act by illegal means. While saying so, c 
this Court is not oblivious of the fact that often 
conspiracy is hatched in secrec~r and for proving the said 
offence substantial direct evidence may not be possible 
to be obtained. An offence of criminal conspiracy can also 
D 
be proved by circumstantial evidence. [Paras 51 and 52] 
,.1,-
[1078-H; 1079-A-B] 
1.3. Ex facie, there is no material to show that a 
conspiracy had been hatched by the respondents. [Para 
52] 
E 
Soma Chakravarty v. State Through CBI (2007) 5 SCC 
--"'-! 
403; K.N. Sathyapalan (Dead) by LRs. v. State of Kera/a & 
Anr. (2006) 12 SCALE 654; Kehar Singh and Ors. v. State 
(Delhi Administration), 1988 (3) SCC 609; State (NCT) of F 
Delhi v. Navjot Sandhu @ Afsan Guru (2005) 11 SCC 600; 
Ram Narayan Popli v. CBI (2003) 3 SCC 641 and Yogesh 
@ Sachin Jagdish Joshi v. State of Maharashtra (2008) 6 
SCALE 469, referred to. 
2. The Minister in his note dated 4.11.1991 did not G 
'-1 
make any recommendation. He merely lamented the 
manner in which the former Secretary acted as prior 
thereto, the said authority himself for all intent and 
purport had accepted the recommendations of the 
authorities incharge of construction of the dam including 
H 
1050 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2009) 12 S.C.R. 
A the Chief Engineer. He constituted a committee. He 
obtained the opinion of the Financial Adviser. If upon 
consideration of the entire materials on record, 
independent opinion 
had 
been 
rendered and 
recommendations were made, it is difficult to 
B comprehend as to how that by itself would constitute a 
criminal misconduct or leads to the conclusion of 
hatching any criminal conspiracy. Recommendations 
made by the Committee or the opinion rendered by an 
independent officer like Financial Adviser need not be 
c acted upon. It was for the State to take a decision. Such 
a decision was required to be taken on the basis of the 
materials available. [Para 53) [1080-H; 1081-A-C] 
D 
Inspector Prem Chand v. Govt. of N. C. T. of Delhi & Ors. 
2007 AIR SCW 2532, referred to. 
3. Even under the Prevention of Corruption Act, an 
offence cannot be said to have been committed only 
because the public servant has obtained either for 
himself or for any other person any pecuniary advantage. 
E He must do so by abusing his position as public servant 
or holding office as a public servant. In the latter category 
of cases, absence of any public interest is a sin
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.