TMT. INDRAKUMARI Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Criminal Revision Case has been filed against the order passed by the learned XIII Additional Special Judge, Madras, dated 11 -8 -1997 in Crl.M.P. No. 29 of 1997 in C.C. No. 3 of 1997 refusing to discharge the petitioner from the criminal case as per S. 239, Cr.P.C.

(2.) THE main ground on which the revision case has been filed is, the Court below ought to have held that there is no proper and valid sanction to take cognizance of the case. The fact that sanction was accorded under S. 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 in relation to a public servant who ceased to hold office on the date of according sanction clearly indicates that sanction was accorded mechanically without considering the materials facts. The lower Court also erred in accepting the impugned document, viz., G.O.Ms. No. 1199 dated 13 -10 -1996 signed by the Secretary to the Government on 14 -10 -1996 as valid sanction for the prosecution of the petitioner. The petitioner was one of the ministers of Tamil Nadu State during 1991 to 1996 and as such she was a public servant. The charges levelled against her by respondent was allegedly committed by her while she was acting or purporting to act in discharge of official duties as a minister. Therefore, the petitioner is entitled to the protection under S. 197(1), Cr.P.C. There is no evidence on record to show that all the relevant materials collected during the course of investigation have been placed before the Sanctioning Authority viz., the Governor of Tamil Nadu for his scrutiny. There is also no evidence to show that the Governor of Tamil Nadu has applied his mind to the facts and circumstances of the case in order to conclude that prima facie case is made out before according sanction to prosecute. It is also contended that Court below seriously erred in stating that sanction order is valid as it is authenticated by the order in the name of the Governor. The Court below failed to note that all the executive orders of the Government are always issued, 'By order and in the name of the Governor under the Tamil Nadu Business Rules. This can never be construed that the Governor has perused the records and after consideration granted the sanction. Taking cognizance of a criminal case is not an idle formality and it has to be decided whether the sanction is valid even at the threshold and the learned Additional Special Judge had failed to consider the same. The reasons given by the learned Judge for dismissing the application for discharge is erroneous. As cognizance itself is questioned, S. 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1988 is not a bar to entertain this application.

(3.) AT this juncture, a reference to the order of sanction accorded by His Excellency the Governor of Tamil Nadu may be necessary. Paragraphs 1 and 2 of the Government Order dated 13 -10 -1996 issued in G.O.Ms. No. 1199, Public (S.C.). Department read thus: -