Some Dutt Goyal @ S.D. Goyal vs State Of Jharkhand And Ors

Heard in Part.

Heard Mr. Indrajit Sinha, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner in Cr. M.P. No. 671 of 2002 and Mr. A.K. Das, learned counsel

appearing on behalf of petitioner in Cr. M.P. No. 453 of 2007.

Heard Mr. Rohit Sinha, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the CBI.

Both these cases arises out of the same F.I.R. thus are heard together.

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner in Cr. M.P. No. 671 of 2002 submits that this petition has been filed for quashing the entire

criminal proceeding against the petitioner in connection with R.C. Case No. 10A/94-D so far as the petitioner in concerned including the order taking

cognizance dated 11.10.2001. Learned counsel submits that the petitioner at the relevant point of time was an employee of the M/s BCCL and after

completion of investigation, the matter was placed before the competent authority for grant of sanction and the sanction order is dated 31.07.2001.

The learned counsel submits that after considering the entire gamut of affairs, the competent authority had granted the sanction for prosecution only

against Sri B.B.P. Teterbai, the then Dy. Chief Engineer (Transportation), BCCL, Dhanbad and sanction for prosecution against the petitioner was not

granted. He submits that in spite of this, the CBI in the charge sheet has mentioned that sanction order in respect of Sri S.D. Goyal under Section

19(1) (c) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 is awaited and he was being charge sheeted under Sections 120B, 420 and 477-A of the Indian

Penal Code only. Learned counsel submits that sanction for prosecution is required not only under the provisions of Prevention of Corruption Act,

1988 but also under the provisions of Indian Penal Code. He further submits that considering the sanction order dated 31.07.2001, the competent

authority had considered the grant of sanction and had not granted the sanction for prosecution so far as petitioner is concerned. But this fact was not

properly projected by the CBI in the charge sheet and at the stage of impugned order taking cognizance dated 11.10.2001, the learned court below had

taken cognizance of offence against the petitioner under Section 120B, 420, 477A of the Indian Penal Code and also observed that sanction for

prosecution against the petitioner is awaited. Learned counsel submits that impugned order taking cognizance is fit to be set aside in absence of

sanction for prosecution which was duly considered vide sanction order dated 31.07.2001 but no sanction for prosecution was granted against the

present petitioner. Learned counsel has also submitted that entire allegation revolves around discharge of official duty by the petitioner.

Learned counsel also submits that in view of absence of sanction for prosecution, the entire criminal proceeding as against the petitioner is an abuse of

the process of law and accordingly the same is fit to be set aside. Learned counsel has also cited a judgement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in

Cr. Appeal No. 1599 of 2009 and he submits that once the sanction for prosecution was refused there was no question of proceeding against the

accused even if he subsequently retired.

Learned counsel for the petitioner in Cr. M.P. No. 453 of 2007 Mr. A.K. Das submits that the petitioner had retired from service as back as in the

year 1994. He further submits that the law is well settled that the sanction for prosecution may not be required once the public servant retires from

service for prosecuting him under the provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, but the protection of Section 197 of Cr. P.C. is still

available to persons post retirement, if they are to be prosecuted under the provisions of the Indian Penal Code. Learned counsel submits that although

the order of sanction is not in the records of Cr. M.P. No. 453 of 2007, but the same is available in the connected record which indicates that the

proposal for sanction for prosecution of the petitioner was also placed along with others and ultimately the sanction for prosecution was granted only

against one B.B. P. Teterbai and not against the petitioner. Learned counsel submits that the CBI was not correct in making a statement in the charge

sheet that since the petitioner has retired and no sanction for prosecution is at all required. Learned counsel submits that sanction for prosecution

under Section 197 Cr. P.C. was still required and there being no sanction for prosecution under Section 197 Cr. P.C., the entire criminal proceedings

against the petitioner for the alleged offence under Indian Penal Code is fit to be set aside. So far as sanction for prosecution under Prevention of

Corruption Act is concerned, he has fairly submitted that once the public servant retires from service sanction is not required, however, on the merits

of the case he submits that even if the entire allegation made against the petitioner in the charge sheet is taken to be true, no criminal case at all is

made out against the petitioner.

Admittedly in these cases, no counter affidavit has been filed by the CBI. The learned counsel for the CBI prays that the matters be posted on

13.01.2020 so that he may assist this court after seeking instruction from the CBI and if required place materials before this court to satisfy the

involvement of the petitioners and to satisfy the court that the alleged acts and omissions of the petitioners were out of the purview of discharge of

their official duty. He submits that law is well settled that if the acts and omissions are out of the purview of the discharge of the official duty the

protection for grant of sanction is not available.

Post these cases on 13.01.2020 at 2:15 p.m. to be taken up as a 1st case.