Read Time: 14 minutes

Synopsis

The Supreme Court recently emphasised that the limited scope of Section 482 CrPC for the high court is to determine “whether or not there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused” based on the material, and not “whether that would warrant a conviction”. 

It also underscored that the validity of sanction for prosecution of a public servant under the Prevention of Corruption Act can be examined during the trial and delay in grant of sanction cannot be a ground to quash the criminal proceedings.

A bench of Justices P S Narasimha and Manoj Misra allowed an appeal filed by the Tamil Nadus Vigilance and Anti Corruption Department against the Madras High Court judgment of April 21, 2017, which quashed a disproportionate assets case lodged against respondent G Easwaran. 

He was alleged to have acquired assets unknown to sources of his income during the check period of January 01, 2001 to August 31, 2008. An FIR was filed on July 27, 2009, and a charge sheet was filed on September 23, 2013. The special court dismissed a discharge application on January 27, 2016, and the high court also dismissed a revision application. 

The respondent joined the government service as a surveyor in 1980 and was working as Assistant Director with Nagercoil Local Planning Authority at the relevant time.

The bench noted it was not in dispute that the special court, while dismissing the discharge application, as well as the high court while dismissing the revision petition, arrived at clear findings that there was a prima facie case, and this conclusion was drawn after examining the allegations as they stand. 

"The impugned order operates against the established law that while the bar under section 397(3) of the CrPC does not curtail the remedy under Section 482, it is trite that inherent powers must be exercised sparingly," it said.

In the present case, the inherent power under Section 482 CrPC for quashing the criminal proceedings was invoked after the dismissal of the discharge application and the consequent revision petition. In State by Karnataka Lokayukta, Police Station, Bengaluru Vs M R Hiremath (2019), the top court examined a similar situation where the High Court entertained a petition under Section 482 CrPC filed against the dismissal of a discharge petition, the bench pointed out.

It is not disputed that in the instant case, the special court, as well as the high court, while dismissing the petition for discharge, examined the allegations and arrived at clear findings that there was a prima facie case against the respondent, the bench said. 

The court held the impugned order revisited the earlier decisions without any statable change in the facts and circumstances of the case, and traversed to the extreme end of the spectrum.

The bench further noted the high court's order concluded that: the wife of the accused purchased the properties in the name of the daughter having power of attorney; that there was no satisfactory evidence of Benami; even if allowed to prosecute, the chances of conviction were bleak; or the probability of conviction was low; and the statements of witnesses did not warrant prosecution. 

"It is clear that the High Court jumped to the probable conclusion of trial by not appreciating the limited scope of Section 482 CrPC. Instead of determining “whether or not there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused” based on the material, it asked the wrong question as to, “whether that would warrant a conviction”," the bench said.

The bench said it was of the clear opinion that the high court had exceeded the well-established principles for exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 of the CrPC.

With regard to the validity of the sanction granted to prosecute the respondent, the bench noted, dealing with the issue, the impugned order went into the merits of the sanction and made a finding regarding the sanction being invalid.

"Findings regarding the legality, validity, or delay in grant of sanction were premature. Validity of the sanction is an issue that must be examined during the course of the trial," the bench said.

The State counsel submitted that the conclusions drawn by the high court about the impossibility of granting sanction on July 08, 2013 when the government received the request only on December 20, 2013, was not raised at any point in time, neither in the discharge application before the special judge nor before the high court in revision petition. He further submitted that the argument was not even mentioned in the quashing petition under Section 482 CrPC filed before the high court.

He explained that the misconception about the dates arose because of a typographical mistake of mentioning the letter requesting sanction as December 20, 2013, instead of the correct date being February 20, 2013. 

"This is typically the problem that would arise when the High Court seeks to interdict proceedings and quash the criminal case before the relevant material to support the case of the prosecution is brought on record," the bench said.  

Thus, the bench held there was no doubt that the high court committed an error in quashing the prosecution on the ground that the sanction to prosecute was illegal and invalid.  

"We find that the objections raised in the revision petition against the Special Court’s order dismissing the discharge application were identical to the grounds raised in the petition under Section 482 CrPC, from which the present appeal arises. Second, apart from being congruent and overlapping, the respondent could not demonstrate any material change in facts and circumstances between the dismissal of the revision petition by the High Court and the filing of the quashing petition under Section 482 CrPC," the bench said.   

The court also pointed out that the validity of the sanction could always be examined during the course of the trial and the problems due to the typographical error as alleged by the State could have been explained by producing the file at the time of trial. The court also noted it was settled that a mere delay in the grant of sanction for prosecuting a public authority was not a ground to quash a criminal case.

"We are of the opinion that the reasoning adopted by the High Court for interdicting the criminal proceedings is contrary to the well-established principles laid down by this Court. We, therefore, set aside the judgment while reiterating the correct position of law," the bench said.

Allowing the appeal, the court restored the matter to the record of the court of the special judge, Prevention of Corruption Act Cases, Chennai, for the continuation of the trial from the stage it was interdicted. Since the matter pertained to the check period 2001-2008, the court asked the trial court to conclude the trial as expeditiously as possible.

Case Title: State Rep By The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Vigilance And Anti Corruption Chennai City I Department Vs G Easwaran