STATE OF RAJASTHAN versus TARACHAND JAIN

Citation: [1974] 1 S.C.R. 146 · Decided: 01-05-1973 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: I.D. DUA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

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

Judgment (excerpt)

146 
STATE OF RAJASTHAN 
v. 
TARACHAND JAIN 
May l, 1973 
[H. R. KHANNA AND I. D. DUA JJ.J 
Crin1i11al Trial-Sanction for prosecution-Application of mind to facts of 
case by authority granting sanction, proof of-Res judicata in criminal 
pro-
ceedings-Judgment of High Court· in revision is binding on High Court 
hear-
int appeal in same proceeding. 
The resvondent who was a memb:r of the Rajasthan Administrative Service 
was put up for trial before a Special Judge for offences under s. 161 of the 
Indian Penal Code and s. 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 after 
sanction for his prosecution had been obtained. The resPondent challenged 
the validity of the sanction: The 
Special Judge held that since the sanction 
was given by the Chief Mirfister and not by the appointing authority, namely. 
the Governor, the sanction was invalid. In revision a Division Bench of the 
High Court, taking into account the Rules of Business and article 166 of the 
Constitution held that the Chief Minister constituted the Government in 
this 
matter and sanction accorded by him in the name and the authority of the 
Governor was valid Government sanction. The case was &ent back to 
the 
Special Judge for trial according to law. According to the evidence produced 
before the Special Judge sanction p.34 bore the signature of the Special 
Secre· 
tary Appointments Department. The 
Special Juitge rejected the contention 
of the res!'londent that the Chief Minister's sanction was given without applying 
his mind. and relying on the High Court's judgment held the sanction to be 
valid. The respondent appealed to the High Court. Another Bench of 
the 
High Court accepted the contention and quashed the proceedings against 
the 
respondent. The State appealed to this Court with certificate. 
It was con· 
tended on behalf of the appellant (i) that in view of the earlier judgment of the 
Division Bench in revision it was not open to the High Court in appeal 
to 
quash the procee_dings against the respondent for want of proof of valid sane· 
tion; (ii) that there was enol!gh material to show that valid sanction for the 
prosecution had been accorded. 
Allowing the appeal, 
HELD: (i) The Special Judge had mentioned in his order that the sanc-
tion to prosecute the accused had been given by the Chief Mini5ter. This ob· 
servation about the factual position in the order of the Special Judge did 
not 
appear to have been challenged in revision in the High Court and it apparently 
seemed to have been accepted that the sanction for the prosecution had been 
accorded by the Chief Minister. It was in those circumstances that the High 
Court repeatedly referred to the sanction accorded by the Chief Minister. T.he 
Judgment of the Division Bench in revision was binding on the High Court 
when it disposed of the appeal filed by the accased respondent. and it was not 
permissible to go into the question as to whether the sanction had been accord-
ed by the Chief Minister. 
[152HJ 
Bhagat Ram v. State of Rajasthan, [1972] 2 S.C.C. 466 applied. 
Samba Sivan v. Public Prosecutor, Federation of Malaya [1950] A.C. 
458, 
State of Andhra Pradesh v. Kokkiliagada Merrayya and Anr., [1969] 2 S.C.R. 
1004; Connelly v. Director of Public 
Prosecutions, 
[1964] 
A.C. 
1254, 
and 
Gokulchand Dwarkadas Morarka v. The King, 57 I.A. 30, referred to. 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
There was positive evidence in the present case that the sanction for the 
prosecution of the accused·respondent had been accorded by the Chief Ministei;. 
The Office Superintendent of the Apriointments Department who was presum-
H 
ably familiar with the signature of the· Chief Minister had stated that the sanc-
tion had been accorded by th<: 1_·11ief 1finister. The 
judgment of the Higlt 
Court was vitiated by the onii~{':'· 
take into account this material piece of 
evidence. 
[154H, 155CJ 
.• 
A 
RAJASTHAN v. tARACHAND JAIN (Khanna J.) 
147 
(ii) It is clear ffom a perusal of sanction ·p34 that the facts constituting the 
offence have b~en referred to on tbC face of the sanction. As such it was not 
necessary to lead separate evidence to show that the relevant facts were placeti 
before the Chief Minister. 
The evidence of the Office Superintendent sh.owed 
that the formal sanction P34 filed in the court bore the signature of the Special 
Secretary to the Government. The fact that the Chief Minister signed the sane:. 
tion for the !lrosecution on the file and not the formal sanction produced 
ir

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