STATE OF M.P.versusRAM MANOHAR PANDEY

A
                       [2014) 11 S.C.R. 268

                         STATE OF M.P.
                                v.
                                                               •
                    RAM MANOHAR PANDEY
               (Criminal Appeal No. 2547 of 2014)
                      DECEMBER 09, 2014
B
          [SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA AND
                 PRAFULLA C. PANT, JJ.]

       Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - s. 19 - Previous
c sanction necessary for prosecution - Sanction for prosecuting
  respondent-public servant - Refusal of by the Municipal
  Corporation and thereafter, by the State, while the respondent
  was in service - Respondent discharged by the court of
  competent jurisdiction - Despite superannuation of
D respondent from service, fresh cha/Ian filed by the prosecution
  against respondent - Rejection of the application for
  discharge by the trial court - Revision petitions thereagainst,
  dismissed by the High Court-Applications uls. 19 before the
  Special Court also dismissed - However, revision petition
E thereagainst allowed by the Division Bench - On appeal,
  held: Not a fit case to grant the relief claimed by the State.

        Dismissing the appeals, the Court
       HELD: The parliament should consider the
F constitutional imperative of Article 14 enshrining the rule
  of law wherein "due process of law" has been read into
  by introducing a time-limit in Section 19 of the Prevention
  of Corruption Act, 1988 for its working in a reasonable
  manner. However, in view of the facts including the fact
G that the State refused to grant sanction while the
  respondent was in service and he was discharged by the
  Court of competent jurisdiction earlier and in view of the
  decision of this Court in the case of *Chittarajan Das that


H                               268
•    STATE OF M.P. v. RAM MANOHAR PANDEY


when sanction sought is refused by the competent
                                                           269


                                                                  A
authority while public servant was in service, he cannot
be prosecuted later after his retirement notwithstanding
the fact that no sanction for prosecution under the
Prevention of Corruption Act is necessary after retirement
of the public servant, it is not a fit case to grant the relief   B
claimed by the State. [Para 25, 27) [277-A, 8, D, E]
    *Chittaranjan Das v. State of Orissa 2011 (7) SCR 836 :
(2011) 7 sec 167 - relied on.
    State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Sheet/a Sahai and Others          C
2009 (12) SCR 1048 : (2009) 8 SCC 617; Subramanian
Swamy vs. Manmohan Singh and Another 2012 (3) SCR 52:
(2012) 3 sec 64 - referred to.
                     Case Law Reference:
                                                                  D
    2009 (12) SCR 1048        Referred to           Para 13
    2012 (3) SCR 52           Referred to           Para 13
     2011 (7) SCR 836          Referred to          Para 27
    CRIMINALAPPELLATEJURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal                E
No. 2547 of 2014.
    From the Judgment & Order dated 05.11.2012 of the High
Court of Madhya Pradesh Bench at Indore in Criminal Revision
No. 1361of2011.                                                   F
                            WITH
Criminal Appeal No. 2548 of 2014.
     Musharra Chaudhary, Ayesha Chaudhary, C.D. Singh for
the Appellant.                                                    G

     Sushil Kumar Jain, Abhinav Gupta, Ankita Gupta, Pratibha
Jain for the Respondent.

     The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
                                                                  H
    270     SUPREME COURT REPORTS              [2014] 11 S.C.R..


A       SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA, J. 1. Leave
    granted

        2. These appeals have been preferred by the appellant-
  State of Madhya Pradesh against the common order dated 5th
B November, 2012 passed by the Division Bench of the High
  Court of Madhya Pradesh, Bench at Indore. By ~he common
  impugned order, the Division Bench allowed the two revision
  petitions preferred by respondent-Ram Manohar Pandey and
  quashed the order dated 16th September, 2011 passed by the
c Special Judge (under Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988),
  Ujjain in Special Case No.16 of 2004 with respect to Crime
  No.66 of 1993 and Special Case No. 17 of 2004 with respect
  to Crime No. 67 of 1993.

       3. The respondent- who was appointed on the post of a
D Sub-Engineer w.e.f. 1.7.1972 in the Medical Council, Biaora,
  District Rajgarh was initially promoted to the higher post of
  Assistant Engineer and thereafter to the post of Executive
  Engineer by resolution dated 9th May, 1988. He was placed
  on deputation with Municipal Corporation, Ujjain from 1991-
E 1993 as City Engineer. While he was working there, certain
  charges of corruption were made against him. The Dy. S.P,
  Special Police Establishment Lokayukta, Ujjain filed complaints
  against the respondent which were registered as Crime Nos.
  66 of 1993 and 67 of 1993 for offence under Section 13(1 )(d)
F read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act,
  1988.

       4. In the year 2004, when sanction was sought for
  prosecuting the respondent and some others, the Municipal
G Corporation, Ujjain by resolution Nos.343 and 344 dated 23rd
  September, 2004 refused to grant sanction. In spite of the
  same, charge-sheet was filed against the respondent and
  others before the Trial Court. The charge sheet was challenged
  by the respondent by filing an applidation and the same was
H dismissed by order dated 24th September, 2004.
•   STATE OF M.P. v. RAM MANOHAR PANDEY
     [SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA, J.]
                                                          271

     5. Thereafter prosecution sought sanction from the State
Government to prosecute the respondent and some others. But
                                                                 A

the State Government refused to grant sanction by order dated
22nd August, 2006.

    6. As the matter remained pending an application for         8
discharge was filed by the respondent. The Special Judge,
Prevention of Corruption Act, Ujjain, by its order dated 9th
September, 2009 discharged the respondent with following
observation:

          "In the case before me, the accused Ram                c
    Manahan Pandey was working on the post of Executive
    Engineer in Municipal Corporation, Ujjain on deputation
    and at present he has been working as Engineer in
    Municipal Corporation, Rat/am. Accused Ram Manohar
    Pandey being a Government Servant (Civil Servant) is         D
    a public servant and having transferred from the
    Municipal Corporation Ujjain, he is now working at
    Rat/am and he is neither a retired personnel nor attained
    the age of superannuation and also he has not been
    discharged, nor was dismissed. Jn the above situation        E
    there is prior need of taking prosecution sanction against
    Ram Manohar Pandey for his trial in respect of offences
    under Prevention of Corruption Act. Since, prosecution
    sanction has not been granted against the accused Ram
    Manohar Pandey, therefore, cognizance of offence could       F
    not be taken against him. Therefore, he is hereby
    discharged."

    7. The aforesaid order was not challenged by the State
and, therefore, the order of discharge reached finality.
                                                                 G
    8. The respondent attained the age of superannuation on
30th September, 2009 and consequently was superannuated
from service. Subsequently, a fresh challan was filed by
prosecution on 8th December, 2009 against the respondent and
some other contrary to the order dated 9th September, 2009.      H
A
    272       SUPREME COURT REPORTS              [2014] 11 S.C.R.

    This time when the respondent filed applications for dischar9e
    which were rejected by the Trial Court vide order dated 31st
                                                                       •
    March, 2010.

        9. Being aggrieved, the respondent filed two revision
B petition nos.802 of 2010 and 803 of 2010 challenging the order
  of Trial Court dated 31st March, 2010. However, both the
  petitions were dismissed by the High Court by the common
  order dated 1st October, 2010.

       10. Thereafter, respondent filed applications under Section
C 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act before the Special
  Judge, Ujjain, (Prevention of Corruption Act) in Special Case
  No. 16 of 2004 and Special Case No. 17 of 2004 with respect
  to the Crime No. 66 of 1993 and Crime No. 67 of 1993
  respectively. The Trial Court vide its common order dated 16th
D September, 2011 rejected the applications filed by the
  respondent.

      11. Being aggrieved by the said order dated 16th
  September, 2011, the respondent filed Revision Petition Nos.
E 1361 of 2011 and 1362 of 2011 before the High Court of
  Madhya Pradesh, Bench at Indore. The Division Bench of the
  High Court by the common impugned order dated 5th
  November, 2012, allowed both the petitions and quashed the
  order dated 16th September, 2011 in Special Case Nos. 16
F and 17 of 2004 with respect to Crime Nos. 66 and 67 of 1993
  respectively with following observations:-

          " .... As per investigation made by the Lokayukt
          organization they admitted that the over payment was
          made on the basis of running bills submitted by the
G         contractor but no final payment was made in respect of
          work of Goa/taring of road during Singhastha (1991-92).
          The payment of running bill is like an advance payment
          and the mistake about the payment can be corrected at
          the time of preparation of the final bill. They also found
H         that no excess coal tar was supplied to the contractor and
•    STATE OF M.P. v. RAM MANOHAR PANDEY
      [SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA, J.]
    all the work was done within the permissible limit of
                                                          273


                                                                  A
    Madhya Pradesh Works Department Manual, the
    question of pertaining the prosecution to prosecute the
    present petition after his retirement does not arise."

    12. Being aggrieved by the said judgment, the appellant       8
herein filed the instant special leave petitions.

    13. Learned counsel appearing on behalf the appellant
broadly made the following submissions.

           (i) The High Court committed gross error of law        C
           while entertaining the Criminal Revision for the
           same subject matter though the same was barred
           under Section 397(3) of Cr.P.c.

           (ii) The High Court erroneously passed the order in
                                                                  0
           Criminal Revision No. 1362 of 2011 merely on the
           basis of a verdict given by this Court in another
           case.

    He placed reliance in the decision of this Court in State
of Madhya Pradesh vs. Sheetla Sahai and Others, (2009)8           E
SCC 617 and Subramanian Swamy vs. Manmohan Singh
and Another, (2012) 3 SCC 64.

      14. On the other hand, according to the learned counsel
for the respondent sanction was once refused by the State and     F
was not granted before the retirement and therefore the
respondent cannot be prosecuted after his retirement. It was
further contended that revision petition under Section 397
Cr.P.C. cannot be treated as a petition under Section 482
Cr.P .C. He also relied on the decision of this Court in          G
Chittaranjan Das v. State of Orissa, (2011)7 SCC 167, etc,.

      15. We have considered the rival contentions raised by
.learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record.

     16. The alleged complaint was filed against the respondent   H
    274      SUPREME COURT REPORTS               [2014) 11 S.C.R. •


A   and others including one D.L. Rangotha. They were prosecuted
    under Sections 13(1 )(d) and 13(2) of the Prevention of
    Corruption Act, 1988.

        17. When the respondent and others were in service, the
8   Municipal Corporation, Ujjain by Resolution Nos. 343 and 344
    dated 23rd September, 2004 refused to grant sanction for
    prosecuting the respondent and others. In spite of the same,
    charge-sheet was filed on the next day i.e. 24th September,
    2004 before the Trial Court.
c      18. It is pertinent to note that the appellant-State also by
  letter dated 22nd August, 2006 refused to grant sanction to
  prosecute the respondent who was accused no.4. One of the
  grounds taken was that the respondent is not an employee of
  the State Government but as an employee of the Municipal
D Corporation.

         19. We have noticed that Municipal Corporation had
    already refused to grant sanction by resolution dated 23rd
    September, 2004.
E
        20. The co-accused D.L. Rangotha moved before the
  Madhya Pradesh High Court in Criminal Revision No.165 of
  2005. He brought to the notice of the High Court that the Stale
  Government has refused to grant sanction but still charge-sheet
F was filed. However, the High Court by order dated 2nd February,
  2009 dismissed the revision petition filed by said D.L.
  Rangotha and held that fresh challans can be filed after
  retirement.

       21. Against the order dated 2nd February, 2009 the said
G D.L. Rangotha move before this Court. ln·Criminal Appeal No.
  1213 of 2013- D.L. Rangotha vs. State of M.P., this Court
  having noticed the aforesaid fact that the State Government had
  already refused to grant sanction under Section 197 of the
  Code of Criminal Procedure for filing Criminal Case against
H the said D.L. Ranghotha and relying on the decision of this Court
•    STATE OF M.P. v. RAM MANOHAR PANDEY
      [SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA, J.)
in Chittaranjan Das held that the State of Madhya Pradesh
                                                            275

                                                                    A
cannot prosecute the said appellant-D.L. Rangotha.

    22. In the case of respondent, the Special Judge,
Prevention of Corruption Act by order dated 9th September,
2009 discharged the respondent. The appellant had failed to
                                                                    8
make it clear as to how a fresh challan was filed against the
respondent on 8th December, 2009 which is contrary to the
order of discharge dated 9th September, 2009 passed by the
Special Judge, Prevention of Corruption Act, Ujjain.

    23. In the case of Chittaranjan Das, this Court held :          C

           "14. We are of the opinion that in a case in which
    sanction sought for is refused by the competent authority,
    while the public servant is in service, he cannot be
    prosecuted later after retirement, notwithstanding the fact D
    that no sanction for prosecution ·under the Prevention of
    Corruption Act is necessary after the retirement of the
    public servant. Any other view will render the protection
    illusory. Situation may be different when sanction is
    refused by the competent authority after the retirement E
    of the public servant as in that case sanction is not at all
    necessary and any exercise in this regard would be
    action in futility."

    24. In the case of Subramanian-Swamy v. Manmohan
Singh, (2012) 3 SCC 64, while dealing with the question of          F
grant of sanction for prosecution of a public servant, this Court
observed as follows:

           "75. Therefore, in every case where an application
    is made to an appropriate authority for grant of                G
    prosecution in connection with an offence under the PC
    Act it is the bounden duty of such authority to apply its
    mind urgently to the situation and decide the issue
    without being influenced by any extraneous
    consideration. In doing so, the authority must make a           H
A
    276       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                [2014] 11 S.C.R.


          conscious effort to ensure the Rule of Law and cause of
                                                                         •
          justice is advanced. In considering the question of
          granting or refusing such sanction, the authority is
          answerable to law and law alone. Therefore, the
          requirement to take the decision with a reasonable
B         dispatch is of the essence in such a situation. Delay in
          granting sanction proposal thwarts a very valid social
          purpose, namely, the purpose of a speedy trial with the
          requirement to bring the culprit to book. Therefore, in this
          case the right of the sanctioning authority, while either
          sanctioning or refusing to grant sanction, is coupled with
c         a duty.

                 76. The sanctioning authority must bear in mind
          that what is at stake is the public confidencH in the
          maintenance of the Rufe of Law which is fundamental in
D         the administration of justice. Delay in granting such
          sanction has spoilt many valid prosecutions and is
          adversely viewed in public mind that in the name of
          considering a prayer for sanction, a protection is given
          to a corrupt public official as a quid pro quo for services
E         rendered by the public official in the past or may be in
          the future and the sanctioning authority and the corrupt
          officials were or are partners in the same misdeeds. I
          may hasten to add that this may not be the factual
          position in this (sic case) but the general demoralising
F         effect of such a popular perception is profound and
          pernicious.

                79. Article 14 must be construed as a guarantee
          against uncanalised and arbitrary power. Therefore, the
          absence of any time-limit in granting sanction in Section
G         19 of the PC Act is not in consonance with the
          requirement of the due process of law which has been
          read into our Constitution by the Constitution Bench
          decision of this Court in Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India
          (1978) 1 sec 248."
H
•         STATE OF M.P. v. RAM MANOHAR PANDEY
           [SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA, J.]

         25. In view of the aforesaid observation, the Court was of
                                                                   277


                                                                          A
    the view that the parliament should consider the constitutional
    imperative of Article 14 enshrining the rule of law wherein "due
    process of law" has been read into by introducing a time-limit
    in Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 for its
    working in a reasonable manner.                                       B

          26. In t~e State of M.P. vs. Sheetla Sahai this Court
    deprecated the discrimination between the two sets of officials.
    In the said case, the prosecution had proceeded against the
    officials in a pick and choose manner. A few who held office          c
    only for a short period or who had retired before the process
    of the decision making began were proceeded against and a
    few who were connected with the decision were not proceeded
    against.

          27. However, in view of the facts as noticed above              D
    including the fact that the State refused to grant sanction while
    the respondent was in service and he was discharged by the
    Court of competent jurisdiction earlier and in view of the decision
    of this Court in the case of Chittarajan Das, we are of the view
    that it is not a fit case to grant the relief claimed by the State.   E
    We find no merit in these appeals, these are accordingly
    dismissed.

    Nidhi Jain                                       Appeals dismissed.