STATE THROUGH CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION versus PARMESHWARAN SUBRAMANI AND ANR.

Citation: [2009] 14 S.C.R. 385 · Decided: 11-09-2009 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: R.V. RAVEENDRAN · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

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

Judgment (excerpt)

[2009] 14 (ADDL.) S.C.R. 385 
~ 
STATE THROUGH CENTRAL BUREAU OF 
A 
.. 
INVESTIGATION 
~ 
v. 
PARMESHWARAN SUBRAMANI AND ANR. 
(Criminal Appeal No. 1758 of 2009) 
SEPTEMBER 11, 2009 
B 
" 
[R.V. RAVEENDRAN AND B. SUDERSHAN REDDY, JJ.] 
,.... 
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988: s.12 - Previous 
sanction of government as required under s. 19 is not c 
necessary for taking cognizance of offence punishable under 
s. 12 of the Act. 
Interpretation of Statutes: Courts cannot add words to a 
4 
statute or read words into it which are not there-Where there 
D 
is no ambiguity and intention of legislature is clearly 
conveyed, there is no scope for the Court to undertake any 
exercise to read something into the provision which the 
legislature in its wisdom consciously omitted - Such exercise 
if undertaken by courts may amount to amending or altering E 
the statutory provision. 
' 
The question which arose for consideration in the 
present appeal was whether the Special Judge as well as 
the High Court committed error in refusing to take 
cognizance of the offence punishable under Section 12 
F 
of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 alleged to have 
been committed by the respondents on the ground that 
there was no previous sanction of the government as 
required under s.19 of the Act. The view taken by the 
courts below was that though an accused can be 
G 
charged independently under Section 12, the existence 
of an offence under Section 12 is dependent upon 
Section 7 or Section 11. Therefore, so long as a sanction 
is required for punishment of the principal offence under 
385 
H 
386 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 14 (ADDL.) S.C.R. 
A Section 7 or 11 of the Act, sanction would equally be 
necessary in regard to punishment for abetment of those 
J.. 
offences which is covered under Section 12. 
;!. 
. ... 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
,_
B 
HELD: 1. Section 12 of the Prevention of Corruption 
Act, in clear and categorical terms, speaks that whoever 
abets any offence punishable under Section 7 or 11 
whether or not that offence is committed in consequence 
., 
of that abetment, shall be punishable with imprisonment 
~ 
c for a term as provided thereunder. Thus abetment of any 
offence punishable under Section 7 or 11 is itself a 
distinct offence. The offence punishable under Section 
7 or 11 whether actually committed by a public servant 
is of no consequence. It is precisely for the said reason 
/ 
D Section 19 of the Act specifically omits Section 12 from 
1. 
' 
its purview. The courts by process of interpretation 
-
cannot read Section 12 into Section 19 as it may amount 
to rewriting the very Section 19 itself. It is settled law that 
where there is no ambiguity and the intention of the 
E legislature is clearly conveyed, there is no scope for the 
court to undertake any exercise to read something into 
the provisions which the legislature in its wisdom 
consciously omitted. Such an exercise if undertaken by 
\ 
., 
ll 
the courts may amount to amending or altering the 
F statutory .provisions. Where, the language is clear, the 
~ intention of the legislature is to be gathered from the 
language used. It is not the duty of the court either to . 
enlarge the scope of legislation or the intention of the 
legislature, when the language of the provision is plain. 
G The court cannot rewrite the legislation for the reason that 
it had no power to legislate. The court cannot add words 
to a statute or read words into it which are not there. The 
-+ 
court cannot, on an assumption that there is a defect or 
an omission in the words used by the legislature, correct 
H 
STATE THROUGH CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION v. 
387 
PARMESHWARAN SUBRAMANI 
~ 
or make up assumed deficiency, when the words are 
A 
, 
clear and unambiguous. Courts have to decide what the 
law is and not what it should be. The courts adopt a 
construction which will carry out the obvious intention 
of the legislature but cannot set at naught legislative 
judgment because such course would be subversive of 
B 
constitutional harmony. [Paras 14 and 15] [394-C-G; 394-
) 
G-H; 395-A-C] 
_._ 
Union of India & Anr. v. Deokinandan Aggarwal (1992) 
Supp. (1) SCC 323; State of Jharkhand & Anr. v. Govind c 
' .. 
Singh (2005) 10 SCC 437, relied on. 
Sharad Waman Bushake v. State of Maharashtra (1993) 
Mah. L.J. 284;A.R.Antulay v. Ramdas Sriniwas Nayak 
(1984) 2 sec 500, referred to. 
:,J. 
D 
2. The High Court fell into error in reading into 
Section 19 o

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