TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Join Channel
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) Whether previous sanction under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 was required to prosecute the appellant who had retired before filing of the final report; (ii) whether the pardon granted to the approver before the Special Court procedure was vitiated for non-compliance with the Code; (iii) whether the conviction of the first appellant for conspiracy, cheating, forgery, using forged documents and corruption could be sustained on the evidence; (iv) whether the convictions of the fourth and seventh appellants were sustainable.
Issue (i): Whether previous sanction under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 was required to prosecute the appellant who had retired before filing of the final report
Analysis: Protection under Section 197(1) applies where the act complained of bears a reasonable connection with the discharge of official duty and is not merely a cloak for criminal conduct. The decision to resort to restricted tender was traceable to the existing policy and fell within the realm of official decision-making, even if the act was alleged to be improper or motivated. The prosecution had not obtained previous sanction for the retired appellant.
Conclusion: The prosecution was hit by want of sanction and the issue was answered in favour of the appellant.
Issue (ii): Whether the pardon granted to the approver before the Special Court procedure was vitiated for non-compliance with the Code
Analysis: The statutory scheme distinguishes between pardon tendered by a Magistrate under Section 306 and pardon tendered after cognizance by a Special Court under Section 307 read with Section 5 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Where cognizance is taken directly by the Special Court, the committal route is bypassed and the requirement of examining the approver twice under Section 306(4)(a) does not apply. The approver was examined in trial and the accused had an opportunity to cross-examine on the confession and pardon proceedings.
Conclusion: There was no procedural illegality in the grant or use of pardon, and this issue was answered against the appellant.
Issue (iii): Whether the conviction of the first appellant for conspiracy, cheating, forgery, using forged documents and corruption could be sustained on the evidence
Analysis: The approver's testimony was found unreliable and insufficiently corroborated in material particulars. The record did not establish that the tender process, the alleged bogus firms, or the monetary transaction proved a criminal conspiracy or cheating beyond reasonable doubt. The evidence also failed to prove the ingredient of wrongful loss or unlawful gain necessary for the corruption charge, and the finding under the provision dealing with false evidence was unsupported by the pleadings and the statutory bar on cognizance. On the whole, the prosecution case against the first appellant was not proved.
Conclusion: The convictions of the first appellant could not be sustained and the issue was answered in his favour.
Issue (iv): Whether the convictions of the fourth and seventh appellants were sustainable
Analysis: The fourth appellant's role was confined to a later committee stage after the tender process had already advanced, and the evidence did not establish participation in conspiracy or forgery. The seventh appellant's alleged involvement in obtaining demand drafts was not proved by admissible or reliable handwriting evidence, and the mere transfer of money to a firm in which he was a partner did not by itself establish the offences charged. The findings based on Section 73 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 were unsustainable because no admitted or proved specimen was properly before the Court.
Conclusion: The convictions of the fourth and seventh appellants were unsustainable and the issue was answered in their favour.
Final Conclusion: The Supreme Court held that the prosecution failed on the sanction objection as to the first appellant, rejected the challenge to the pardon procedure, and found the evidence insufficient to sustain the convictions of the appellants. The convictions and sentences were set aside and the appellants were acquitted.
Ratio Decidendi: An act connected with an official decision taken under an existing policy may attract the protection of sanction if it bears a reasonable nexus to official duty, and where a Special Court takes cognizance directly, the approver procedure under Section 306 of the Code does not apply in the same manner as in committal cases; convictions cannot rest on uncorroborated or unreliable approver evidence or on speculative findings of conspiracy, loss, or forgery.
TaxTMI 
