LexSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA versus ISHWAR PIRAJI KALPATRI AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
v.
ISHWAR PIRAJI KALPATRI AND ORS.
NOVEMBER 30, 1995
B
[M.K. MUKHERJEE AND B.N. KIRPAL, JJ.]
Constitution of India, Article 227 r/w C<:de of Criminal Procedure, 1973
S.482-High Court quashing criminal proceedings after lodging of F.I.R.,
granting of sanction and filing of charge sheet-Held, there was no justification
C for the High Cowt to have stopped nonnal procedure of trial.
D
Prevention of Conuption Act 1947-S.S(l)(e}-Fonnation of prima
f acie opinion of guilt leading to filing of FIR-Held, it is not obligatory to give
the person against whom report is to be lodged, an opportunity of being
heard-Natural justice.
Code of Criminal Procedure 197~S.482-Quashing of criminal
proceedings on ground of malafides-Held, malafides may be relevant while
examining evidence but would be no ground for quashing prosecution.
E
Code of Criminal Procedure 197~S. 197 (l)(b) and Prevention of
Conuption Act 1947, s.6(1)(b)-Grant of sanction by State Government for
prosecution of public servant-High Court quashing sanction on ground of
F
G
non-application of mind by the authority-Held, order of sanction showed no
. ~
legal infinnity and that material on record was examined before according
sanction.
Constitution of India, Article 136-Respondent in the Supreme Court
seeking to withdraw original proceeding to avoid adverse decision-Held, no
justification for granting pennission; such practice strongly deprecated-Prac-
tice and Procedure.
Consequent upon enquiries made against K, a Vigilance Officer in
the office of the Transport Commissioner, Bombay, a first information
r~port was recorded and a case registered under S.5(2) read ~th S.5(1)
(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 ('Act') . The government of
Maharashtra in its order according sanction to prosecute K stated that
H there was a prima facie case made out against him and that during the
812
STATEv. l.P. KALPATRI
813
course of his service he was found to be in possession of assets in his name A
and/or in the names of his family members disproportionate to his known
sources of income to the extent of over Rs. 5.66 lakhs. Soon thereafter, a
charge sheet was filed against K, his wife and certain relations.
The criminal writ petition filed by K for quashing the criminal
proceedings was allowed by a Single Judge of th~ Bombay High Court B
holding that K had been denied an opportunity of giving an explanation
prior to the registration of the offence; that the sanctioning officer did not
record in the order that K could not satisfactorily account for his dis-
proportionate assets; there was non-application of mind and that the
circumstances showed malafides of the authorities.
C
Allowing the State's appeal, this Court
Held : 1. There was no justification for the High Court to have
exercised its jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution and S.482
of the Cr. P.C. in quashing the prosecution. The first information report D
having been lodged, the Government of Maharashtra having accorded
sanction and thereafter, the charge having been filed, there was absolutely
no justification for the High Court to have stopped the normal procedure
of trial being allowed to continue. The truthfulness of the allegations and
the establishment of guilt can only take place when the trial proceeds
without any interruption. [826-F; D-E]
Rupan Deol Bajaj v. Kanwar Pal Singh Gill, [1995) 6 SCC 194
Minakshi Bala v. Sudhir Kumar, [1994) 4 sec 142, referred to
2. For the formation of a prima facie opinion that an officer may be
guilty of criminal misconduct leading to the filing of the first information
report, there is no provision in law or otherwise that makes it obligatory
E
F
of an opportunity of being heard to be given to a person against whom the
report is to be lodged. The opportunity which is to be afforded to the
delinquent officer under S.5(1)(e) of of the Act of satisfactorily explaining
about his assets and resources is before the Court when the trial com- G
mences and not an earlier stage. [821-B; G-H]
K Veeraswami v. Union of India, [1991) 3 sec 655 and State of Bihar
v. P.P. Shamia, [1992) Supp. 1 sec 222, relied on.
3. The State had not acted in a malafide manner and the observations H
814
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1995) SUPP. 5 S.C.R.
A
of the High Court in this regard were wholly unjustified. Allegations of
malafides may be relevant while judging the correctness of allegatior.s or
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.