TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (10) TMI 1184
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e real culprits are not booked by the investigating agency. He contends that the petitioner therefore intends to make appropriate prayer in the writ petition. Accordingly, to enable the learned counsel to carry out the aforesaid exercise, the matter is adjourned to 21% November, 2014." 2. In view of the foregoing order and the consequent conversion of the Criminal Revision Application into a Special Criminal Application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioners now pray for the following substantive reliefs: "a. That this Hon'ble Court will be pleased to admit and allow this Special Criminal Application; b. That this Hon'ble Court will be pleased to issue a writ of certiorari or any other writ, order or direction quashing the charges against the petitioners in the charge sheet filed before CBI Court No. 3, Ahmedabad in Case No. 8/2007; c. That this Hon'ble Court will be pleased quash and set aside the impugned order dated 06.05.2013 passed by the Hon'ble special Judge, in the case No 8/2007 may be quashed and set aside; d. Pending admission and final hearing of this Special Criminal Application, the Hon'bl....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he said orders as well as the charges framed against them. C. SUBMISSION OF THE PETITIONERS:- 4. Learned Senior Advocate Mr. Jayant Panchal, ably assisted by learned Advocate Mr. Y.V. Vaghela, appearing for the petitioners, submitted that petitioner No. 1 is serving as an Officer on Special Duty (OSD) on deputation in the office of the Development Commissioner, KASEZ, having its City Offices at Ahmedabad and Surat. It is submitted that the gravamen of the allegations against the petitioners pertains to the submission of an allegedly false report, which is said to have occasioned substantial loss to the public exchequer. The FIR has been registered for offences punishable under Sections 120B, 420, 467, 468, 471 of the IPC and Sections 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. 4.1. It is further submitted that the investigation in the matter has been concluded and a chargesheet has been filed before the learned CBI Court. Petitioner No. 1 - Shri Chirala Sesha Srinivas preferred a discharge application registered as Special Case No.8 of 2007 before the learned Special Judge, CBI Court No. 4, Ahmedabad, which came to be exhibited as Exhibit-17....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rosecution alleges that the petitioners, by omitting to ascertain the actual working capacity of the unit, deliberately suppressed material facts, thereby misrepresenting the functional status of M/s. Shiv Metal Corporation. According to the prosecution, the factual position remains that the said unit never possessed the capability to manufacture finished goods meant for export, and therefore, the report submitted by the petitioners constitutes dereliction of duty, attracting penal culpability under the provisions invoked. 4.6. Learned Senior Advocate further submitted that, in so far as petitioner No. 1 is concerned, a departmental proceeding had already been initiated in the year 2011 on identical allegations and charges. Inviting attention to Exhibit-Q at page 178 onwards, learned Senior Advocate submitted that the charges levelled in the departmental enquiry were verbatim identical to those forming the substratum of the present criminal prosecution. The petitioner No. 1 duly faced the departmental enquiry, the report whereof is placed on record at pages 184 to 207. The Enquiry Officer, who was the Deputy Commissioner of Customs, upon an exhaustive appreciation of evidence, c....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ion with an unblemished record. 4.9. In view of the foregoing submissions, learned Senior Advocate further contended that once the charges levelled against petitioner No. 1 have already been quashed in the departmental proceedings, which were founded upon identical and verbatim allegations, the continuation of the present criminal prosecution would be wholly untenable in law. It was submitted that when the substratum of both proceedings is congruent, the criminal prosecution cannot be permitted to survive, and the same deserves to be quashed. 4.10. As regards petitioner No. 2, it was submitted that Mr. H.C. Pandya has, in the interregnum, tendered his resignation, which has been duly accepted by the competent authority. The department has issued a No Objection Certificate (NOC), pursuant whereto petitioner No. 2 has lawfully relieved himself from service and is presently gainfully employed elsewhere. In such a factual milieu, to compel the petitioners to undergo the rigours of a protracted criminal trial would, in the respectful submission of the learned Senior Advocate, amount to an abuse of the process of law and an exercise in futility. 4.11. Learned Senior Advocate, to....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....etitioner was to assail the order declining discharge, and not to invoke writ jurisdiction indirectly to achieve what could not be achieved directly. 5.3. It is further contended that the impugned order(s) passed by the learned Special Judge are not amenable to the supervisory or writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Hence, the petition, on this count alone, deserves to be dismissed in limine. 5.4. Learned advocate for the respondent has placed reliance upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State NCT of Delhi v. Ajay Kumar Tyagi [(2012) 9 SCC 685], to buttress the contention that once the competent authority has accorded sanction for prosecution, it is presumed that due application of mind has been exercised and that sufficient material exists for prosecuting the accused persons. 5.5. As regards the role of petitioner No. 2, it was submitted that though he may have tendered resignation from his official post, such resignation does not exonerate him from the criminal culpability alleged in the charge-sheet. The departmental clearance or "clean chit," if any, granted to him, would not ipso facto absolve him from the crimi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of events unmistakably demonstrates that the petitioners were fully conscious of the express bar contained in Section 19(3)(c) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, which precludes the grant of stay of proceedings or entertainment of revision against interlocutory orders. Ergo, it is manifest that what could not have been achieved under Sections 397 and 401 Cr.P.C., cannot be permitted to be attained sub silentio through the writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. 7.5. It also warrants mention that the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the seminal case of Satya Narayan Sharma v. State of Rajasthan, (2001) 8 SCC 607, had occasion to examine the effect and amplitude of the non-obstante clause occurring in Section 19(3) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. The Apex Court therein categorically held that the High Courts ought not to exercise inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. or writ jurisdiction under Articles 226 or 227 to stay or interdict proceedings pending before the Special Court constituted under the Act. 7.6. The ratio propounded in Satya Narayan Sharma (supra) has subsequently been reiterated and fortified by the larger Bench decision i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....apted. In appropriate cases proceedings under Section 482 can be adapted. However, even if petition under Section 482 Criminal Procedure Code is entertained there can be no stay of trials under the said Act. It is then for the party to convince the concerned Court to expedite the hearing of that petition. However merely because the concerned Court is not in a position to take up the petition for hearing would be no ground for staying the trial even temporarily." 8. In arriving at the aforesaid conclusion, the Hon'ble Supreme Court took cognizance of the Statement of Objects and Reasons appended to the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, wherein it was elucidated that "in order to expedite the proceedings, provisions for day-to-day trial of cases and prohibitory provisions with regard to grant of stay and exercise of powers of a revision on interlocutory orders have also been included." In view of the above, the petition filed by the petitioner under the jurisdiction of article 226 of the Constitution of India wholly misconceived. 9. In Neeta Singh and Others v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others, rendered in Special Leave to Appeal (Criminal) No. 13578 of 2024, the Hon'ble Ape....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... writ jurisdiction of the high courts. After all, should any right of a person be infringed as a consequence of a judicial order, the laws provide for the fora where such order is amenable to challenge and it is such fora, which ought to be 10 para 29 of Radhey Shyam approached for redress of one's grievance. This position flows from Constitution Bench decisions of this Court in Naresh Shridhar Mirajkar & Ors. vs. State of Maharashtra; and Rupa Ashok Hurra vs. Ashok Hurra; as well as the decision of a bench of three Judges in Sadhana Lodh vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd.; 5. Although Radhey Shyam (supra) dealt with judicial orders passed by civil courts, there cannot be a different standard for judicial orders passed by criminal courts. If a judicial order passed by a civil court cannot be challenged in a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, a fortiori, a judicial order passed by a criminal court cannot also be challenged in a writ petition under Article 226." 10. It is apposite to first advert to the nomenclature of the present petition. The petition, though ostensibly filed as Criminal Revision under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Cr.P.C., was....