STATE OF MIZORAM versus DR. C. SANGNGHINA

Citation: [2018] 14 S.C.R. 68 · Decided: 30-10-2018 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: R. BANUMATHI · Disposal: Leave Granted & Allowed

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

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
68
                   SUPREME COURT REPORTS            [2018] 14 S.C.R.
STATE OF MIZORAM
v.
DR. C. SANGNGHINA
(Criminal Appeal No. 1322 of 2018)
OCTOBER 30, 2018
[R. BANUMATHI AND INDIRA BANERJEE, JJ.]
Constitution of India – Art.20(2) – Principle of double
jeopardy – When not applicable – Case registered against the
respondent-accused u/s.13(1)(c)(d)(e) r/w s.13(2), 1988 Act and
s.409,IPC– Special Court discharged the accused/respondent due
to lack of proper sanction and closed the case– Subsequently,
Governor in supersession of the earlier order granted sanction for
prosecution of the respondent – Supplementary charge sheet along
with fresh prosecution sanction against the respondent submitted
for reopening the case – Dismissed on the ground that it was barred
by the principle of “double jeopardy” – Propriety of – Held: Since
the earlier order of sanction was found to be invalid, there is no
bar for the competent authority to issue a proper order of sanction
for prosecution – Unless there is failure of justice on account of
error, omission or irregularity in grant of sanction for prosecution,
the proceedings under the  1988 Act could not be vitiated – By
filing fresh charge sheet, no prejudice is caused to the respondent
nor would it result in failure of justice to be barred under the
principle of “double jeopardy” – Under Art.20(2), no person shall
be prosecuted and punished for the same offence more than once –
Basis of s.300(1), CrPC is that the person who was tried by a
competent court, once acquitted or convicted, cannot be tried for
the same offence – However, in the case in hand, the respondent
was not tried as he was discharged due to lack of proper sanction
even before commencement of trial– Where the accused has not
been tried at all and convicted or acquitted, the principle of “double
jeopardy” cannot be invoked at all – Thus, when the respondent
was so discharged due to lack of proper sanction, the principle of
“double jeopardy” will not apply – There was no bar for filing
fresh/supplementary charge sheet after obtaining valid sanction for
prosecution – Special Court and the High Court were not right in
[2018] 14 S.C.R. 68
68
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
69
holding that the filing of the fresh charge sheet with proper sanction
order for prosecution was barred under the principle of “double
jeopardy”– Impugned judgment set aside – Special Court to take
cognizance of the charge sheet dated 30.01.2014 and proceed in
accordance with law – Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 –
s.13(1)(c)(d)(e) r/w s.13(2) – Penal Code, 1860– s.409– Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973– s.300(1).
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 – s.19(3) and (4) –
Discussed.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1.1 Since the earlier order of sanction was found to
be invalid, there is no bar for the competent authority to issue a
proper order of sanction for prosecution. The courts are not to
quash or stay the proceedings under the Prevention of Corruption
Act, 1988 merely on the ground of an error, omission or
irregularity in the sanction granted by the authority unless it is
satisfied that such error, omission or irregularity has resulted in
failure of justice. A combined reading of sub-sections (3) and (4)
of Section 19 of Prevention Act make the position clear that
notwithstanding anything contained in the Code no finding,
sentence and order passed by a Special Judge shall be reversed
or altered by a Court in appeal, confirmation or revision on the
ground of the absence of, or any error, omission or irregularity in
the sanction required under sub-section (1), unless in the opinion
of that court, a failure of justice has in fact been occasioned
thereby. In the instant case, of course, the initial sanction was
granted by the Secretary, DP & AR to Government of Mizoram.
Having taken cognizance of the matter, before passing the
discharge order, the Special Judge ought to have examined the
matter to ascertain whether such error or irregularity in the
sanction has resulted in failure of justice. No such reasonings
were recorded by the Special Judge or by the High Court that
the initial sanction for prosecution granted by the Secretary has
resulted in failure of justice. Unless there is failure of justice on
account of error, omission or irregularity in grant of sanction for
prosecution, the proceedings under the Act could not be
vitiated. By filing fresh charge sheet, no prejudice is
STATE OF MIZORAM v. DR. C. SANGNGHINA
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
70
    

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