THE STATE OF GUJARAT AND ORS. versus DILIPBHAI NATHJIBHAI PATEL

Citation: [1998] 2 S.C.R. 56 · Decided: 03-03-1998 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M.K. MUKHERJEE · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Cited by 1 judgment(s) · cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

.. 
A 
B 
' ' 
'~.~---;-,.· ... --.... 
THE STATE OF GUJARAT AND ORS. 
v. 
DILIPBHAI NATHJIBHAI PATEL 
MARCH 3, 1998 
•.• .[M.K. MUKHERJEE AND K.T. THO!v1AS, JJ.] 
Cooperative Societies : 
Gujarat Cooperative Societies Act, 1961-Sections 71, 147(c) & (d) 
C and 149(3)-Hearing before giving sanction for prosecution as provided 
under Section 149(3).:._Held, applicable ·only in case_ of proposed under 
Section 147(3)(c) and not otherwise-High Court erred in holding the said 
provision applicable to the grant of sanction for prosecution. under Section 
147(3)(d). 
-
D 
Interpretation of Statute-Interpretation of defective phrasing of an 
Act-Held, Court cannot aid the legislature's defective phrasing ·of an Act 
nor can it add, or amend and by construction make up deficienci~ which 
are left there. 
Appellant No. 2 had lodged a prosecution against the respondents 
E under Section 147(1)(d) ~r the Gujarat Cooperative Socieites Act for 
committing breach of Section 71 of the Act after obtaining sanction of the 
District Registrar as required under Section 149(3) of the Act. The 
respondents challenged ·the prosecution by way of filing a petltion before the 
High Court under Section 482 Cr PC. The High Court allowed ihe petition 
F by observing that a sanction under Section 149(3) for prosecution under 
Section 147(l)(d) could 'not be given without giving the party c~ncerned a 
prior hearing. Hence the Appeal. 
Allowing the appeal, this Co_urt 
G 
HELD: I.I. For lodging prosecution for an offence under the Gujarat· -
Cooperative. Societies Act, previous sanction is essentiaL In respect of offences 
under Section 147(l)(c) the sanctioning authority is the State Government; 
for all other offences it is the Registrar. When the words "such sanction 
shall not be given" appearing at the beginning of the second part are in 
juxtaposition with the words "by an officer authorised in this behalf by the 
H State Government by a general or special order" at the end, it is manifest 
56 
STATE OF GUJARAT v. D.N. PATEL [M.K. MUKHERJEE, J.] 
57 
that hearing is to be given only if a sanction for prosecution under Section A 
'1· 
147(l)(c) is contemplated and not otherwise. When there is no reference to 
the Resgistrar at all in the latter part of the section such sanction appearing 
therein must refer to a sanction which is required to be given by the State 
Government. [58-F-G; 59-C! 
1.2. The matter may be viewed from the other angle also. If the words B 
"such sanction" are to refer also to the offences for which the Registrar is 
the sanctioning authority it will lead to an absurd situation in that a duly 
authorised officer of the State Government will hear the parties on the 
question of grant of sanction on its behalf, but the decision to grant sanction 
will rest on the Registrar. (60-B] 
C 
2. In interpreting a statute the Court cannot aid the legislature's 
defective phrasing of an Act nor can it add or amend and by construction 
make up deficiencies which are left there. [59-D] 
Union of India v. Deoki Nandan Aggarwal, [1991) 3 SCR 873, relied D 
on. 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No, 
258 of 1998. 
From the Judgment and Order dated of the 9.7.97 Gujarat High E 
Court in Crl. M.A. No. 3269 of 1997. 
Yashank P. Ahdyaru, ·Mr. Anu Sawhney and Ms. H. Wahi for the 
Appellants. 
Aseem Mehrotra and A.P. Medh for the Respondents. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
M.K. MuKHERJEE, J. Leave granted. 
F 
The appellant no. 2 a District Co-operative Officer of Vadodara has 
lodged a prosecution against the two respondents under Section 147(1) (d) G 
--~ 
of the Gujarat Cooperative Societies Act, 1961 ('Act' for short) for committing 
breach of Section 71 of the Act after obtaining sanction of the district 
Registrar as required under Section 149 (3) thereof. The prosecution is also 
for certain offences under the Indian Penal Code. Aggrieved thereby the 
respondents moved the High Court by filing a petition under Section 482 Cr. H 
58 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1998) 2 S.C.R. 
A P.C. In disposing of the petition the High Court observed that a sanction 
under Section 149(3) for prosecution under Section 147(1)(d) cannot be given 
without giving the party concerned a prior hearing. Since, admittedly, the 
respondents were not given such hearing, the High Court directed that the 
complaint relating to the above offence shall not proceed till notice to the 
respondents were given and sanction was accorded after hear
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.