2016 (8) TMI 501 - SC - Indian Laws

Supreme Court Quashes Proceedings for Lack of Central Government Sanction

Prof. N.K. Ganguly Versus CBI New Delhi

Prof. N.K. Ganguly Versus CBI New Delhi - 2015 (10) SCR 192, 2016 (2) SCC 143, 2015 (11) JT 113, 2015 (12) SCALE 500 Issues Involved:1. Whether an offence under Section 120B IPC is made out against the appellants, and if so, whether previous sanction of the Central Government is required to prosecute them for the sameRs.2. Whether the order dated 08.11.2012 passed by the learned Special Judge taking cognizance of the offence against the appellants is legal and validRs.3. What orderRs.Detailed Analysis:Issue 1: Offence under Section 120B IPC and Requirement of Previous SanctionArguments by Appellants:- The transaction of transferring the plot to ICPO-ICMR Housing Society was transparent and legally sanctioned by NOIDA.- The CBI withheld the Comptroller and Auditor General (CAG) report.- No prior sanction was obtained from the Central Government under Section 197 CrPC, necessary as the appellants were public servants acting in their official capacity.Arguments by Respondents:- The appellants conspired to transfer the plot illegally for personal gain, without proper authorization from NOIDA.- The acts were not part of their official duties, thus no sanction under Section 197 CrPC was required.Court's Analysis:- The FIR and charge-sheet allege that the appellants conspired to transfer the plot at a lower price, causing undue pecuniary advantage for themselves.- The concept of criminal conspiracy under Section 120-A IPC involves an agreement to commit an illegal act.- Previous sanction under Section 197 CrPC is required if the act is directly connected with the official duties of the public servant.- The court cited several precedents indicating that the requirement of sanction depends on whether the act was done in the discharge of official duties.Conclusion on Issue 1:- The acts complained of were directly connected to the appellants' official duties, thus requiring prior sanction from the Central Government under Section 197 CrPC before prosecution.Issue 2: Legality of the Order Dated 08.11.2012Arguments by Appellants:- The Special Judge erred in taking cognizance without prior sanction from the Central Government.- The initiation of proceedings without sanction affects the fundamental rights under Articles 14, 19, and 21 of the Constitution of India.Arguments by Respondents:- The illegal acts were not part of the appellants' official duties, thus no sanction was required.- The High Court rightly dismissed the applications under Section 482 CrPC.Court's Analysis:- The court examined the allegations and found that the acts were connected to the appellants' official duties.- The Special Judge should not have taken cognizance without the requisite sanction.Conclusion on Issue 2:- The order dated 08.11.2012 taking cognizance and issuing summons was invalid due to the absence of prior sanction from the Central Government.Issue 3: What OrderRs.Court's Order:- The impugned judgment and order of the High Court dated 27.05.2013 and 07.10.2014 are set aside.- The proceedings taking cognizance and issuing summons to the appellants in Special Case No. 18 of 2012 by the Special Judge, Anti Corruption (CBI), Ghaziabad, are quashed.- The appeals are allowed, and all applications are disposed of.Summary:The Supreme Court quashed the proceedings against the appellants due to the absence of prior sanction from the Central Government as required under Section 197 CrPC. The court held that the acts alleged were connected to the appellants' official duties, necessitating prior sanction for prosecution. The orders of the High Court and the Special Judge were set aside, and the appeals were allowed.