T.L.Vedachalam v. The State, rep.byThe Inspector of Police,SPE/CBI/ACB,Chennai

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED :: 05-09-2007CORAMTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.PALANIVELUCRIMINAL REVISION CASE Nos.1320 & 1321 OF 2007T.L.Vedachalam...Petitioner(Accused No.1)-vs-The State, rep.byThe Inspector of Police,SPE/CBI/ACB,Chennai....Respondent(Complainant)Revisions against the order, dated 30.07.2007, made inCrl.M.P.Nos.1276 and 1277 of 2007 in C.C.Nos.22 and 23 of 2004,on the file of Principal Special Judge for CBI Cases, Chennai. For petitioner : Mr.V.Ramana ReddyFor respondent : Mr.N.Chandrasekaran, Special Public Prosecutor CBI Cases,COMMON JUDGMENTThese revisions are filed against the order ofdismissal, passed by the learned Special Judge for CBI Cases,Chennai, declining to discharge the petitioner in C.C.Nos.22 and23 of 2004.2. The facts, which are necessary for appreciation ofthese cases, are as follows :2.1. Petitioner was working as Assistant Manager inUnited India Insurance Company. On the strength of reliableinformation, a case was registered against one S.Balasubramanian,Senior Divisional Manager, and five others for the offencesunder Section 120-B read with Sections 420, 468, 468 read with471 IPC and Section 13 (2) read with 13 (1) (d) of The Preventionof Corruption Act,1988. First and second accused are theofficials while the remaining accused are private parties. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

2.2. The allegation was that A-1 and A-2, conspiringwith A-3 to A-6, intentionally sanctioned hefty amount on thebasis of false motor accident claims submitted by the transportvehicle owners, who are A-3 and A-4. A-5 and A-6 are thesurveyors, for assessing damages to the vehicles and otherconnected affairs, who submitted false survey reports, containingbogus particulars.2.3. After investigation, the name of first accusedi.e., S.Balasubramanian, was deleted and charge sheet was laid,portraying the present petitioner as accused No.1.2.4. The learned Principal Special Judge for CBI Cases,Chennai, framed charges against A-1 under the above said sectionsand since he pleaded not guilty, the case was taken up for trial,which is now in the stage of examination of witnesses. In fact,certain witnesses have been examined.3. The bottom line contention of the learned counselfor the petitioner is that the petitioner is in no way connectedwith the case and that the prosecution has woefully failed toobtain sanction to prosecute him from the prescribed authority atappropriate time and, hence, the proceedings against him have tobe held as non-est.4. At the outset, it shall be stated that the sanctionorder was not mentioned in the charge sheet at the time of filingof the same by the investigating agency into the Court and,thereafter, the prosecution filed Criminal M.P.Nos.319 and 320 of2005 under Section 311 read with 173 Cr.P.C., to cite ThiruSundaresan as an additional witness. It is mentioned thereinthat a copy of the sanction order was already supplied to theaccused. The said M.Ps. were allowed by the Court below.5. Pertinent it is to state that the petitioner has notchallenged the orders passed in Criminal M.P.Nos.319 and 320 of2005 before proper forum.6. Learned counsel for the petitioner would strenuouslycontend that filing of the sanction order before the Court is notproper and it would prejudice the rights of the petitioner andthough it is a condition precedent, it comes to light only afterfiling of the charge sheet and, hence, on that ground, theproceedings are liable to be quashed. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

7. In support of his contention, the learned counselgarners support from a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court inState of H.P. v. M.P.Gupta, 2004 (2) Supreme Court Cases 349,wherein it was held as follows : "So far as public servants areconcerned, the cognizance of any offence, byany court, is barred by Section 197 Cr.P.C.,unless sanction is obtained from theappropriate authority, if the offence,alleged to have been committed, was indischarge of official duty. The saidsection not only specifies the persons towhom the prosecution is afforded but it alsospecifies the conditions and circumstancesin which it shall be available and theeffect in law if the conditions aresatisfied. The mandatory character of theprotection afforded to a public servant isbrought out by the expression "no courtshall take cognizance of such offence exceptwith the previous sanction". Use of thewords "no" and "shall" makes it abundantlyclear that the bar on the exercise of powerof the court to take cognizance of anyoffence is absolute and complete. The verycognizance is barred. That is, thecomplaint cannot be taken notice of. Theword "cognizance" means "jurisdiction" or"the exercise of jurisdiction" or "power totry and determine causes". In commonparlance, it means taking notice of. Acourt, therefore, is precluded fromentertaining a complaint or taking notice ofit or exercising jurisdiction if it is inrespect of a public servant who is accusedof an offence alleged to have been committedduring discharge of his official duty." The same judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court contains answer tothe question posed by the petitioner in the following terms :"As far as the offence of criminalconspiracy punishable under Section 120-B,read with Section 409 of the Indian PenalCode is concerned and also Section 5 (2) ofthe Prevention of Corruption Act areconcerned, they cannot be said to be of the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ nature mentioned in Section 197 of the Codeof Criminal Procedure. To put is shortly, itis no part of the duty of a public servant,while discharging his official duties, toenter into a criminal conspiracy or toindulge in criminal misconduct. Want ofsanction under Section 197 of the Code ofCriminal Procedure is, therefore, no bar."8. Mr.N.Chandrasekaran, learned Special PublicProsecutor for CBI, draws attention of this Court to a decisionof the Supreme Court in Central Bureau of Investigation v.V.K.Sehgal and Another, 1999 Supreme Court Cases (Cri) 1494,wherein, it was held as follows :"In a case where the accused failed toraise the question of valid sanction, thetrial would normally proceed to its logicalend by making a judicial scrutiny of theentire materials. If that case ends inconviction, there is no question of failure ofjustice on the mere premise that no validsanction was accorded for prosecuting thepublic servant because the very purpose ofproviding such a filtering check is tosafeguard public servants from frivolous ormala fide or vindictive prosecution. But, oncethe judicial filtering process is over oncompletion of the trial, the purpose ofproviding for the initial sanction would bogdown to a surplusage."9. Admittedly, allowing of the petitions filed underSection 311 Cr.P.C. were not challenged by the petitioner and,instead, he allowed the cases to proceed. Applying the abovesaid principles contained in the decision of the Hon'ble ApexCourt, it is to be observed that it is a futile exercise on thepart of the petitioner to come forward with such a contention,belatedly. 10. Learned counsel for the petitioner laboured hard toput forth his contention that on the strength of an invalidsanction and other attending circumstances, the case should notbe allowed to continue and, hence, the proceedings against thepetitioner are liable to be quashed.11. The said contention of the learned counsel for thepetitioner is not acceptable, for the reason that charges werealready framed and examination of witnesses has also started and https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ the case is in part-heard stage. Under the circumstances, thepetitioner come forward with the revisions before this Court,praying for quashing the proceedings, which cannot becountenanced either on fact or in law.12. The further contention of the learned counsel forthe petitioner that only on some information received fromoutside, the cases came to be registered and that theregistration of the case was barred by limitation cannot besustainable, as the said aspects are to be gone into on thebackground of the factual scenario and the petitioner cannotcanvass the same before this Court for the present, the reasonbeing that he is precluded from contending that he is to bedischarged, since the charges were already framed.13. In the light of what is stated above, thepetitioner is not entitled for discharge from the proceedings inquestion. Hence, these revision petitions fail and the same aredismissed. No costs. Consequently, the connected CriminalM.P.Nos.1 and 2 of 2007 in both the cases are also dismissed.dixitSd/Asst.Registrar/true copy/Sub Asst.RegistrarTo1. The Principal Special Judge for (CBI Causes), Chennai2. The Inspector of Police, SPE/CBI/ACB,Chennai.3. The Special Public Prosecutor for CBI Cases, High Court,Chennai.+ 2 ccs to Mr. V. Ramana Reddy, Advocate SR No. 55762, 55763JRG(CO)SR/18.9.2007 CRL.R.C.Nos.1320 & 1321/ 2007