Supreme Court of India (Division Bench (DB)- Two Judge)

Appeal (Crl.), 2129 of 2011, Judgment Date: Feb 24, 2015

  •  There is nothing on record to suggest that  it  was  executed  at
    the instance of the  appellant.
  • If the  delegatee  has
    not acted in terms of the delegated powers, we are  of  the  view  that  the
    delegator cannot be held to be guilty for such  execution  of  the  exchange
    deed.  Though for some other reasons, we are of the view that it was  not  a
    fit case for grant of sanction either under Section 19 of the P.C.  Act  for
    prosecuting the appellant under Sections 13(1)(d) read  with  13(2)  of  the
    P.C. Act or under Section 197 Cr.P.C. for prosecuting  the  appellant  under
    Section 120B IPC.  
  • If the  State  Government  and  the  Central  Government
    refused to grant sanction,  the  Special  Judge  rightly  declined  to  take
    cognizance of the  offences  punishable  under  Section   (1)(d)  read  with
    Section 13(2) of the P.C. Act   and for  want  of  prosecution  of  sanction
    under Section 19 of the P.C. Act and Section 120B IPC for want  of  sanction
    under Section 197 Cr.P.C.
  • Appeal is allowed with aforesaid observations.

                                                              NON-REPORTABLE
                         IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

                        CRIMINAL  APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                     CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 2129 OF 2011


VINOD CHANDRA SEMWAL                                      .. APPELLANT(s)          


                                   Versus   
                                                

SPECIAL POLICE ESTABLISHMENT, UJJAIN                   ... RESPONDENT(s)

        
                               J U D G M E N T

SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA, J.

      This appeal has been preferred by the  appellant  against  the   order
dated 13.7.2011 passed by the  Principal  Bench  of  High  Court  of  Madhya
Pradesh at Jabalpur,  in  Criminal  Revision  No.  1821  of  2009.   By  the
impugned order, the High Court allowed the criminal  revision  preferred  by
the investigating agency-State  and  set-aside  the  order  dated  30.3.2007
passed  by  the  Special  Judge  (Prevention  of  Corruption  Act),   Ratlam
(hereinafter to be referred to as "Special Judge").
2.    The  appellant  Vinod  Chandra  Semwal  is  a  member  of  the  Indian
Administrative Service of Madhya Pradesh  cadre.   Since  4.7.1991,  he  was
posted as Collector, Ratlam.   On  21.12.1992,  in  exercise  of  the  power
conferred under Section 31 of the Madhya  Pradesh  Town  Improvement  Trusts
Act, 1961 (for short "the Act"),  the  State  Government  appointed  him  as
Chairman of the Town Improvement Trust, Ratlam (for short  "the  Trust"),  a
statutory body constituted under Section 4  of  the  Act.    The  allegation
against the appellant is that while  holding the post  of  the  Chairman  of
the Trust, he abused his  position  as  a  public  servant  and  transferred
30,000 square feet of government land  to  an  ineligible  and  unauthorised
person  Vinod Bhai Parekh without any consideration and thereby caused  loss
of Rs. 1,34,33,381/- to State exchequer.   The  allegation  was  made  after
eight years of the alleged incident.  On  receipt  of  the  complaint,  Shri
Deepak Tiwari, Lokayukta, Bhopal  conducted a preliminary inquiry and  found
prima face case of commission of offences punishable under Section  13(1)(d)
read with Section 13(2) of the  Prevention  of  Corruption  Act,  1988  (for
short "P.C. Act") and Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).   A  case
as Crime  No.  57/2001  was  registered  by  Special  Police  Establishment,
Lokayukta.   Despite repeated requests by the  prosecution,  sanction  under
Section 19 of  the  P.C.  Act  to  prosecute  the  appellant  under  Section
13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the P.C. Act  was  not  granted  and  by
order dated 23.1.2007, sanction under Section 197 of the  Code  of  Criminal
Procedure to prosecute the appellant under Section 120B IPC was  refused  by
the Madhya Pradesh Government.  It is informed that the  Central  Government
even refused to grant sanction to  prosecute  the  appellant.   However,  on
24.1.2007, the prosecution filed charge-sheet against the appellant and  co-
accused Vinod Bhai under Section 120B of the Indian  Penal  Code  and  under
Sections 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of the P.C. Act  without any sanction.
3.    The Special Judge in Special Case  No.1  of  2007,  vide  order  dated
30.3.2007,  declined  to  take  cognizance  against  the  appellant  of  the
offences punishable under Section 13(1)(d) read with Section  13(2)  of  the
P.C. Act for want of sanction  of prosecution under Section 19 of  the  P.C.
Act  and  refusal  of  sanction  under  Section  197  of  the  Cr.P.C.   for
prosecution under Section 120B IPC.
4.    On the order being challenged by the prosecution, the Division  Bench,
by  impugned order, referred the case of Prakash  Singh  Badal  and  another
vs. State of Punjab and others (2007)1 SCC 1  and held that the  same  ratio
was applicable as the appellant had not executed the exchange  deed  in  the
capacity of Collector but in the  capacity  of  Chairman,  Town  Improvement
Trust, Ratlam.
5.    It was contended on behalf of the appellant that as the appellant  was
posted as Collector of Ratlam on 4.7.1991, he  was  ex-officio  Chairman  of
the Town Improvement Trust, Ratlam, a statutory  body  under  the  Act.   In
that view of the matter, the sanction was mandatory   under  Section  19  of
the P.C. Act for prosecution of the appellant for  the  offences  punishable
under Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the P.C. Act and  sanction
under Section 197 Cr.P.C.  was required for prosecuting the appellant  under
Section 120B of the IPC.
6.    During the  course  of  arguments,  learned  senior  counsel  for  the
appellant, referring to the documents on record,   submitted  that  in  fact
exchange deed was executed by one K.K. Singh  Chauhan  as  Chairman  of  the
Trust.  On the other hand, learned senior counsel for  the  State  submitted
that the aforesaid plea cannot be taken at this stage as it is a  matter  of
investigation and can be taken only during the trial.   He  placed  reliance
on  Office  Order  dated  22.12.1992  to  suggest  that  the  appellant  had
delegated the powers to said K.K. Singh Chauhan.

7.    From the record the following fact emerges:
      The appellant was not appointed on the post of Chairman of  the  Trust
by name but was appointed for being posted as Collector,  Ratlam.   This  is
evident apparent from the order No. F-178/32/92 dated  21.12.1992,  relevant
portion of which reads as follows:

                 "MADHYA PRADESH GOVERNMENT
      HOUSING & ENVIRONMENT DEPARTMENT

                       ORDER

                                   Bhopal, dt. 21.12.92

No. F-178/32/92

Exercising the powers conferred under Section 31 of the Madhya Pradesh  Town
Improvement Act, 1960 (Act No. 14 of  1961),  the  State  Government  hereby
appoint the followings as mentioned in Schedule-I on the  posts of  Chairman
of the Improvement Trusts of the State

1. Town Improvement Trust (sic): Collector Raigarh
          2. Town Improvement Trust Jhansi  Collector Hoshangabad

                 xxx        xxx        xxx              xxx

        14.  Town Improvement Trust         Collector Chhindwara
        15.  Town Improvement Trust, Ratlam Collector Ratlam
        16.  Town Improvement Trust         Collector Mandsaur

                            by the order of H.E. the Governor
                                       sd/-
                                  (Rajendra Singh)
                                  Deputy Secretary
                            Madhya Pradesh Government
                            (Housing & Environment Dept.)"

8.    It appears that as the appellant  was  the  Collector,  by  order  No.
5218/Ratlam dated 22.12.1992,  he  delegated  all  his  powers,  duties  and
functions except those conferred or vested in Chairman under  Section  25(1)
and (2) of the Act except those conferred or imposed upon  or  vested  under
Sections 16,19,29 and 56 of the Act  subject  to  control  and  revision  by
Chairman, if necessary.  The order has been placed  by  the  learned  senior
counsel for the State and reads as follows:

      OFFICE OF THE TOWN IMPROVMENT TRUST, RATLAM

  NO...........RATLAM  DATED THE............

                       OFFICE ORDER

I, V.Semval, Chairman Town Improvement Trust,  Ratlam  hereby   delegate  to
Shri K.K. Singh Chauhan, Chief Executive Officer,  Town  Improvement  Trust,
Ratlam under Section 25(1) and (2) of the Town Improvement Trust  Act,  1960
(14 of 1961) all the powers, duties or functions except those  conferred  or
impose upon or vested in Chairman u/s 16,19,29 and  56  subject  to  control
and revision by Chairman, if necessary.
In addition to above powers  the  Chief  Executive  Officer  Shri  K.K.Singh
Chauhan will also perform the duties of secretary to the Chairman  and  draw
and disburse the pay, leave salary, T.A./D.A. etc. of the  Trust  Officials.
He will also sanction earned leave, half pay leave, commuted w.e.f.  to  the
sub-ordinate staff.
He will also pay and sign  the  constructors  bill  regarding  constructions
works being executed by the trust  and  other  routine  payments.   He  will
invite tenders for the works and take necessary follow up actions.  He  will
sign all the cheques for the payments of bills etc.

                                             sd/
                                       Chairman
                                  Town Improvement Trust
                                       Ratlam (M.P.)
No. 5218/Ratlam dated 22.12.1992

Copy forwarded to Shri K.K. Singh Chauhan, Chief Executive Officer  and  the
Secretary, Town Improvement Trust, Ratlam for compliance.

                                             sd/
                                       Chairman
                                  Town Improvement Trust
                                       Ratlam (M.P.)

9.    The photocopy of the original exchange-deed dated 23.12.1993 in  Hindi
has been produced by the learned senior  counsel  for  the  appellant.   The
English version of which has been produced by  the  learned  senior  counsel
for the State and relevant portion of which reads as follows:

                            Exchange Deed

The Chairman, Ratlam Reformation Trust, hereinafter called the party  No.  1
and legal heir Shri Vinod Bhai s/o  Jai  Singh  Bhai  M/s.  Jai  Singh  Bhai
Purushottam Das, R/o Ahmedabad, presently residing at  Office  Road,  Ratlam
and Jitender Bhai S/o Rasik Lal Sah through power of attorney  holder,  Shri
Vinod Bhai s/o Jai Singh Bhai r/o Ahmedabad, presently  residing  at  Office
Road, Ratlam, who are valid legal heirs of the trustee of  M/s.  Purushottam
Das Hari Ballav Das Jeevan Das,  Ahmedabad,  according  to  the  deed  dated
11.2.1992, are called the party NO. 2.

This Exchange Deed of the year 1993 has been made and  executed  on  day  of
December, 1993 between both the parties:

xxx              xxx                   xxx

10.  2 Copies of this deed will be  executed  and  in  every  deed  complete
contents of the registry will be mentioned.   Second  party  will  have  the
typed deed and the second copy will retained by the first party.

For the testimony of this deed, the  said  parties  in  the  year  mentioned
hereinabove in the presence of below-signed witnesses have signed herein  in
Ratlam, which are true  and  correct  and  so  that  this  document  may  be
utilized when it is needed.  The end date 23.12.1993.

Signature of the witnesses

                                             sd/-
                            Signature of the First Party

                                             Sd/-
                          Signature of the Second Party


10.   From the photocopy of the exchange deed  (original  exchange  deed  in
Hindi), we find that the said exchange deed has been  signed  by  Shri  K.K.
Singh Chauhan as Chairman, Ratlam Sudhar Nyas, Ratlam (M.P.).

11.   In the charge-sheet No. 04/07 dated 23.1.2007, the aforesaid fact  has
been noticed by the investigating officer and  the  same  appears  from  the
portion quoted below:

"During the course of posting of Sri Semwal, Collector,  Ratlam  itself  the
State of Madhya Pradesh on 21.12.1992 appointed him President  of  the  City
Development Ratlam (N-No. 1P No. 62).  He on 22.12.92  received  the  charge
of the President from Sri Raghunandan Joshi and on that very date  according
to letter No. 5218/22.12.92 udner the City Development Trust Act the  powers
vested in the President,   delegated  Shri  K.K.  Singh  Chauhan  the  Chief
Executive Officer of the Trust (N-No. 1 page No. 65).  Shri  Semwal  in  the
capacity of Collector in Case No. 5A/39/90-91  only  after  7  days  of  the
passing of the order dated 12.02.93 on 19.2.93 in the capacity of  President
City Development Trust, Ratlam on page no. 288 Part  3(1)  of  M.P.  Gazette
dated 19th February,  1993  published  the  acquisition  of  the  said  land
(survey No. 130 and 131) for Plan No. 71 for City Center Development of  the
Trust whereas he was knowing that the land is of  the  Government  and  this
according to the previous proposal of the Trust has to be obtained from  the
Collector,Ratlam (N. No. 1 page No. 82).

In that on the seal of first party President City Development  Trust  Ratlam
is the signature of Shri K.K. Singh Chauhan and the second party Shri  Vinod
Bhai Parekh.  Transfer-deed is enclosed on (N. No. 1 page No. 150).

12.   The above fact is also not disputed by the  learned  counsel  for  the
State but according to him those are the questions of fact which are  to  be
looked into by the trial court.
13.   In the present case what we  find  is  that  the  delegatee  K.K.Singh
Chauhan executed  the  exchange-deed  dated  23.12.1993  on  behalf  of  the
Chairman.  There is nothing on record to suggest that  it  was  executed  at
the instance of the  appellant.   By  Office  Order  dated  22.12.1992,  the
appellant, as Chairman of the  Trust,  delegated  all  his  powers  to  Shri
K.K.Singh Chauhan, Chief Executive Officer,  Town  Improvement  Trust  under
Section 25(1)(2) of the Act. All  the  powers,  duties  or  functions   were
delegated to him except the powers conferred or imposed upon  or  vested  in
Chairman under Sections 16,19,29 and 56 of the Act.   If the  delegatee  has
not acted in terms of the delegated powers, we are  of  the  view  that  the
delegator cannot be held to be guilty for such  execution  of  the  exchange
deed.  Though for some other reasons, we are of the view that it was  not  a
fit case for grant of sanction either under Section 19 of the P.C.  Act  for
prosecuting the appellant under Sections 13(1)(d) read  with  13(2)  of  the
P.C. Act or under Section 197 Cr.P.C. for prosecuting  the  appellant  under
Section 120B IPC.   If the  State  Government  and  the  Central  Government
refused to grant sanction,  the  Special  Judge  rightly  declined  to  take
cognizance of the  offences  punishable  under  Section   (1)(d)  read  with
Section 13(2) of the P.C. Act   and for  want  of  prosecution  of  sanction
under Section 19 of the P.C. Act and Section 120B IPC for want  of  sanction
under Section 197 Cr.P.C.
14.   For the reasons aforesaid, we set-aside the impugned order  passed  by
the Division Bench of the High Court.  However, this order will not come  in
the way of prosecution to make investigation with regard  to  other  accused
persons.
15.   Appeal is allowed with aforesaid observations.

                               ...........................J.
                                  (SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA)

                                   ...........................J.
                                              (N.V. RAMANA)

NEW DELHI;
FEBRUARY 24, 2015.