STATE OF BIHAR Vs. RAJMANGAL RAM
LAWS(SC)-2014-3-68
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA (FROM: PATNA)
Decided on
March 31,2014
STATE OF BIHAR
Appellant
VERSUS
Rajmangal Ram
Respondents
Referred Judgements :-
STATE VS. T VENKATESH MURTHY [REFERRED TO]STATE OF GOA VS. BABU THOMAS [REFERRED TO]
PARKASH SINGH BADAL VS. STATE OF PUNJAB [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF M P VS. VIRENDRA KUMAR TRIPATHI [REFERRED TO]
R VENKATAKRISHNAN VS. CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION [REFERRED TO]
Cited Judgements :-
RAKESH KUMAR VS. CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION [LAWS(DLH)-2014-9-83] [REFERRED TO]VATTAMTHANATH JAYARAM @ V. JAIRAM SON OF LATE VARGHESE, CONSERVATOR OF FOREST, RESIDENT OF CIRCUIT HOUSE AREA, ROAD NO. 1, NEAR DFO OFFICE, JAMSHEDPUR, PO AND PS VS. THE STATE OF JHARKHAND THROUGH VIGILANCE [LAWS(JHAR)-2016-9-19] [REFERRED TO]
DEVENDER GUPTA VS. C.B.I. [LAWS(DLH)-2022-6-33] [REFERRED TO]
GOPAL SINGH BISHT VS. CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION [LAWS(DLH)-2019-1-366] [REFERRED TO]
SRI LANKA VENKATA SUBRAHMANYAM VS. THE STATE OF TELANGANA., REP. BY SPECIAL PP OF CBI, HYDERABAD [LAWS(APH)-2018-1-43] [REFERRED TO]
SHIVANNA VS. STATE BY POLICE INSPECTOR [LAWS(KAR)-2017-1-274] [REFERRED TO]
STATE VS. MUKESH KUMAR SINGH & ANR [LAWS(DLH)-2018-4-8] [REFERRED TO]
VIKRAMAN VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(KER)-2018-3-224] [REFERRED TO]
SANTLAL CHAUDHARY, S/O LATE RAMSWAROOP CHAUDHARY VS. STATE OF BIHAR REPRESENTED THROUGH CHIEF SECRETARY [LAWS(PAT)-2018-5-57] [REFERRED TO]
PAWAN KUMAR KEDIA VS. THE STATE OF JHARKHAND [LAWS(JHAR)-2015-11-97] [REFERRED TO]
BRIJLAL JATAV VS. RAJASTHAN STATE AGRICULTURE MARKETING BOARD [LAWS(RAJ)-2015-11-23] [REFERRED TO]
ABHAY KUMAR VS. SUJIT AND ORS. [LAWS(KAR)-2014-10-269] [REFERRED TO]
H.C. SATHYAN VS. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA [LAWS(KAR)-2017-6-16] [REFERRED TO]
SRINIVASA N.V VS. STATE BY POLICE INSPECTOR [LAWS(KAR)-2019-12-69] [REFERRED TO]
PUSHYAMITRA MISHRA AND ORS. VS. C.B.I. [LAWS(CHH)-2015-10-4] [REFERRED TO]
K.K. VASHISHTH VS. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH [LAWS(CHH)-2022-9-18] [REFERRED TO]
RAJIV KUMAR AND ORS. VS. STATE OF U.P. AND ORS. [LAWS(ALL)-2016-2-113] [REFERRED TO]
B.S. WASKEL AND ORS. VS. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND ORS. [LAWS(MPH)-2015-7-82] [REFERRED TO]
SHIV NARAYAN JHA VS. STATE OF JHARKHAND [LAWS(JHAR)-2014-8-69] [REFERRED TO]
PURAN CHAND BHAGAT VS. UNION TERRITORY OF J&K [LAWS(J&K)-2022-9-57] [REFERRED TO]
MAHESH KARIMAN TIRKI VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(BOM)-2024-3-156] [REFERRED TO]
SHIVA BHADORIYA VS. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH [LAWS(MPH)-2022-9-59] [REFERRED TO]
PREM KUMAR SHARMA VS. THE STATE OF BIHAR [LAWS(PAT)-2015-8-50] [REFERRED TO]
K K VASHISHTH VS. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH [LAWS(CHH)-2021-3-28] [REFERRED TO]
ONKAR PRASAD SHUKLA VS. STATE OF U.P. AND ORS. [LAWS(ALL)-2015-9-223] [REFERRED TO]
RAVINDER KUMAR SHARMA VS. STATE [LAWS(DLH)-2014-11-321] [REFERRED TO]
RAMEGOWDA VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ORS. [LAWS(KAR)-2015-12-58] [REFERRED TO]
PHOOL KUMAR AND ORS. VS. STATE OF HARYANA [LAWS(P&H)-2015-10-4] [REFERRED TO]
RANGASWAMY D VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA THROUGH KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTA POLICE [LAWS(KAR)-2018-9-94] [REFERRED TO]
K. MANI VS. INSPECTOR OF POLICE, SPECIAL C.B.I., KOCHI [LAWS(KER)-2015-12-188] [REFERRED TO]
B S WASKEL VS. STATE OF M.P. & OTHERS [LAWS(MPH)-2015-7-185] [REFERRED]
PILLI SAMBASIVA RAO VS. STATE OF TELANGANA [LAWS(TLNG)-2022-4-68] [REFERRED TO]
MADHAV BHALCHANDRA RAJURKAR VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(BOM)-2015-6-262] [REFERRED TO]
CHANDRESH SAHU VS. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH [LAWS(CHH)-2017-5-36] [REFERRED TO]
PRASHANT JANKAR VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(BOM)-2021-12-136] [REFERRED TO]
YOGESH GOWDA B M VS. KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTA [LAWS(KAR)-2019-1-239] [REFERRED TO]
GORELAL THAKUR VS. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH [LAWS(CHH)-2018-8-26] [REFERRED TO]
SHATRUGAN LAL VERMA VS. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH [LAWS(CHH)-2023-7-22] [REFERRED TO]
SAROJ KUMAR JHA VS. THE STATE OF JHARKHAND & ORS. [LAWS(JHAR)-2014-8-118] [REFERRED TO]
DR. PANCHANAND PRASAD (SON OF LATE SHRI MAHADEO LAL DAS, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE RAMANAKABAD, P.S. HAVELI KHARAGPUR, DISTRICT MUNGER) VS. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH VIGILANCE [LAWS(PAT)-2016-8-108] [REFERRED TO]
BINOY KUMAR SINGH @ VINAY VS. STATE OF BIHAR [LAWS(PAT)-2014-9-34] [REFERRED TO]
KUSH KUMAR TIWARY VS. STATE OF JHARKHAND [LAWS(JHAR)-2021-3-14] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND ORS. VS. ANAND MOHAN AND ORS. [LAWS(SC)-2015-7-37] [REFERRED TO]
PREM SAGAR VS. STATE OF PUNJAB [LAWS(P&H)-2023-6-92] [REFERRED TO]
DILIP KUMAR DAS VS. STATE OF JHARKHAND THROUGH VIGILANCE [LAWS(JHAR)-2014-8-100] [REFERRED TO]
B.P. NAVEEN VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA [LAWS(KAR)-2019-12-5] [REFERRED TO]
SATHIANATHAN C.K. AND ORS. VS. CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION AND ORS. [LAWS(KER)-2014-11-249] [REFERRED TO]
NAZIR AHMED CHOUDHARY VS. STATE OF J & K [LAWS(J&K)-2021-8-84] [REFERRED TO]
MAXI KUJUR VS. STATE OF C.G. [LAWS(CHH)-2017-4-10] [REFERRED TO]
NEERA YADAV VS. CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION [LAWS(ALL)-2016-2-114] [REFERRED TO]
NEEL CHAND SUMAN VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN [LAWS(RAJ)-2015-6-1] [REFERRED TO]
NIHAL CHAND GOEL VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ANR. [LAWS(RAJ)-2015-3-364] [REFERRED TO]
SHIV MUNI RAM VS. STATE OF JHARKHAND [LAWS(JHAR)-2014-8-73] [REFERRED TO]
V.D. RAJAGOPAL VS. THE STATE OF TELANGANA [LAWS(TLNG)-2018-11-36] [REFERRED TO]
SANJAYA DIKSHIT VS. CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION [LAWS(ALL)-2024-7-18] [REFERRED TO]
G P TAMRAKAR, SON OF SAHEB LAL TAMRAKAR VS. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH [LAWS(CHH)-2017-7-43] [REFERRED TO]
MANOJ PRABHAKAR LOHAR VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(BOM)-2016-11-122] [REFERRED TO]
JUDGEMENT
-
(1.)Leave, as prayed for, is granted in both the matters.
(2.)The two appeals are by the State of Bihar against separate orders (dated 23.03.2012 and 03.03.2011) passed by the High Court of Patna, the effect of which is that the criminal proceedings instituted against the respondents under different provisions of the Indian Penal Code as well as the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 have been interdicted on the ground that sanction for prosecution of the respondents in both the cases has been granted by the Law Department of the State and not by the parent department to which the respondents belong.
(3.)A short and interesting question, which is also of considerable public importance, has arisen in the appeals under consideration. Before proceeding further it will be necessary to take note of the fact that in the appeal arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 8013 of 2012 the challenge of the respondent- writ petitioner before the High Court to the maintainability of the criminal proceeding registered against him is subtly crafted. The criminal proceeding, as such, was not challenged in the writ petition and it is only the order granting sanction to prosecute that had been impugned and interfered with by the High Court. The resultant effect, of course, is that the criminal proceeding stood interdicted. In the second case (SLP (Crl.) Nos.159-160/2013) the maintainability of the criminal case was specifically under challenge before the High Court on the ground that the order granting sanction is invalid in law. Notwithstanding the above differences in approach discernible in the proceedings instituted before the High Court, the scrutiny in the present appeals will have to be from the same standpoint, namely, the circumference of the court's power to interdict a criminal proceeding midcourse on the basis of the legitimacy or otherwise of the order of sanction to prosecute.
(2.)The two appeals are by the State of Bihar against separate orders (dated 23.03.2012 and 03.03.2011) passed by the High Court of Patna, the effect of which is that the criminal proceedings instituted against the respondents under different provisions of the Indian Penal Code as well as the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 have been interdicted on the ground that sanction for prosecution of the respondents in both the cases has been granted by the Law Department of the State and not by the parent department to which the respondents belong.
(3.)A short and interesting question, which is also of considerable public importance, has arisen in the appeals under consideration. Before proceeding further it will be necessary to take note of the fact that in the appeal arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 8013 of 2012 the challenge of the respondent- writ petitioner before the High Court to the maintainability of the criminal proceeding registered against him is subtly crafted. The criminal proceeding, as such, was not challenged in the writ petition and it is only the order granting sanction to prosecute that had been impugned and interfered with by the High Court. The resultant effect, of course, is that the criminal proceeding stood interdicted. In the second case (SLP (Crl.) Nos.159-160/2013) the maintainability of the criminal case was specifically under challenge before the High Court on the ground that the order granting sanction is invalid in law. Notwithstanding the above differences in approach discernible in the proceedings instituted before the High Court, the scrutiny in the present appeals will have to be from the same standpoint, namely, the circumference of the court's power to interdict a criminal proceeding midcourse on the basis of the legitimacy or otherwise of the order of sanction to prosecute.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.