Delhi High Court
D.K.Tyagi vs State Thru Cbi on 15 July, 2010
Author: Shiv Narayan Dhingra
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Reserve: July 7, 2010
Date of Order: July 15, 2010
Crl. M.C. No. 4310/2009 & Crl. M.A. No. 14741/2009
%
15.07.2010
D.K. TYAGI ... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Anup Kr. Sinha & Mr. A.K. Pandey, Adv.
Versus
STATE THR. CBI ... Respondents
Through: Mr. Harish Gulati & mr. Anindya Malhotra, Adv.
for CBI.
JUSTICE SHIV NARAYAN DHINGRA
1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes.
2. To be referred to the reporter or not? Yes.
3. Whether judgment should be reported in Digest? Yes.
JUDGMENT
1. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner under section 482
Cr. P.C. for quashing of FIR No. RC.AC.3/2004-A0002 dated 24.05.2004, lodged
under section 13(2) r/w section 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act and
section 120B IPC r/w section 420/468/471 IPC, P.S. ACU-III, CBI.
2. The main ground taken by the petitioner is that the respondent had not
obtained sanction against the petitioner under section 197 Cr. P.C. It is
contended that since the petitioner was charged with the offence under IPC
along with offences under the provisions of corruption act and the offence
under IPC could not be separated from the offences of prevention of
corruption act and even if no sanction was necessary under Prevention of
Corruption Act, sanction under section 197 Cr. P.C. was necessary for offence
under IPC since the petitioner was a public servant.
3. It is not disputed that the petitioner was terminated from the service
after holding an inquiry. The Supreme Court in State of Kerala vs. K
Karunakaran, 2003 Crl. L.J. 2225, observed as under:
"In this case, as stated earlier, the respondent
was the Chief Minister of the State of Kerala when the
offences were alleged to have been committed by him.
He demitted the office of the Chief Minister and when
the charge-sheet was filed, he was a Member of the
Parliament. There is no allegation that he has misused
or abused his office as a Member of Parliament.
Therefore, no permission of the Speaker of Lok Sabha
would be necessary to prosecute him despite the fact
that he was a Member of Parliament when the charge-
sheet was filed.
For the reasons stated above, I hold that
permission of the Speaker of Lok Sabha is not necessary
to prosecute the respondent for the offences alleged to
have committed by him under the P.C. Act. I set aside
the impugned order and allow this revision-petition
filed by the State. "
4. In view of above decision, I consider that no sanction was necessary for
prosecution of the petitioner under Prevention of Corruption Act. So far as
sanction under section 197 Cr. P.C. for prosecution of the accused under IPC
offences is concerned, even if it is considered that sanction was necessary and
no cognizance could be taken under IPC offences against the accused, in my
opinion the FIR against the accused cannot be quashed and accused will have
to face trial for the offences under Prevention of Corruption Act. The plea
taken by the accused that the offences cannot be segregated is not tenable. A
criminal act may attract several penal provisions of different statutes. A
person, for want of relevant sanction may be acquitted under one statute
where obtaining of sanction was mandatory, but he can be convicted under
other statutes where obtaining of sanction is not necessary. I therefore
consider that the FIR cannot be quashed on the ground of not obtaining
sanction under section 197 Cr. P.C. since FIR also mentions of offences under
IPC. As the FIR is under various provisions of P.C. Act, the accused is liable to
face trial before the Trial Court and raise the issue of non accordance of
sanction for IPC offences. The petition is hereby dismissed.
July 15, 2010 SHIV NARAYAN DHINGRA, J.
acm
