MOHAMMED ASIF Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision is to quash the orders passed in the petition filed under Section 239 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking to discharge the petitioner from the charges levelled against him.

(2.) This revision has arisen in this way: The petitioner is the fourth accused in CC No.13 of 1997 pending on the file of the XIII Additional Special Judge, Madras. The petitioner herein was the Minister for Rural Industries of the Government of Tamil Nadu from 24-6-1991 to 14-2-1992, during which period, the alleged offence are said to have been committed. Later, the petitioner was appointed as Member of the Tamil Nadu Wakf Board on 24-3-1993 and on 3-3-1993, he was elected as the Chairman of the Wakf Board which post he relinquished on 9-6-1997. The respondent instituted criminal proceedings against the petitioner and others for alleged commission of offence under Sections 120-B, 409, 467 and 477-A IPC and also under Section 13(l)(c) and (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. According to the prosecution, the petitioner who was a Minister, abusing his official capacity had sanctioned the sale of lands and machineries belonging to TANSI for a paltry sum to accused Nos.1 and 2 who are partners of M/s. Jeya Publications, and thereby committed offence punishable under Section 120-B, 409, 467 and 477-A, IPC and also under Section 13(l)(c) and (d) of Prevention of Corruption Act 1989. The sanction has been obtained under Section 197 Cr.PC. But the sanction is not a valid sanction in that certain facts have not been placed before the Governor of Tamil Nadu. There had been suppression of facts. No sanction has been obtained under Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act. According to the petitioner, failure to obtain sanction under Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act would vitiate the proceedings. The learned XIII Additional Special Judge has held that the offence was not committed by the petitioner in his capacity as Chairman of Wakf Board and only as Ex. Minister, and therefore, sanction is not necessary under Section 19 of Prevention of Corruption Act.

(3.) Heard both the sides, Perused the documents. The learned Public Prosecutor raised a preliminary objection that the order of dismissal of discharge petition is an interlocutory order and no appeal or revision lies against the interlocutory order. Mr. Shanmughasundaram, Public Prosecutor, drew my attention to the ratio laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court in V.C. Shukla v. State, AIR 1980 SC 962. On the other hand, the learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the dismissal of a petition for discharge cannot be equated with an interlocutory order in that it affects or adjudicates the rights of the accused or a particular aspect of the trial and therefore, the order cannot be stated to be an interlocutory order. In . support of his contention, the learned Counsel for the petitioner cited the following authorities: (i) Fakruddin v. State Police, AIR 1962 A.P. 326; (ii) State of H.P. v. S. Harbans Singh, 1976 Crl. LJ 894; (iii)Amar Nath v. State of Haryana, AIR 1977 SC 2185; (iv)Madhu Limave v. Stale of Maharashtra, AIR 1978 SC 47 = 1978 Crl. LJ 165; and (v) State v. Devarajan and Maruthakonar, 1990 LWCrl. 213.