12-07-2006, 07:14 AM
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->http://www.dailypioneer.com/indexn12.asp?main_variable=front%5Fpage&file_name=story3%2Etxt&counter_img=3
<b>SC clears decks to net corrupt babus, netas </b>
Abraham Thomas | New Delhi
Lalu, Rabri have cause to worry, D-Day on Dec 18 <!--emo&
--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif' /><!--endemo-->
The Supreme Court on Wednesday closed escape routes for politicians and bureaucrats indulging in corruption and crimes. In a landmark judgment, the Court held that sanction to prosecute any public servant for an offence will not be required if it is established that the alleged act was for his/her personal gain having no bearing whatsoever with discharge of his official duty.
<b>The immediate fallout of the Court's verdict will be on RJD chief and Railway Minister Lalu Prasad and his wife Rabri Devi against whom a CBI trial court in Bihar is set to pronounce a decision on December 18 in a disproportionate asset case</b>. The Central Bureau of Investigation had lodged an assets case against the duo when he was the Bihar Chief Minister. Necessary sanction was then obtained from the Governor. But while framing of charge-sheet he became Member of Parliament and on this ground he demanded that fresh sanction be obtained from the Speaker of the Lok Sabha, of which he is a member. By this judgment, the prosecution has breathed a sigh of relief since this was the last opportunity for Lalu to block a final decision in the case.Â
<b>At the receiving end are also the likes of former Punjab Chief Minister Parkash Singh Badal, Punjab Deputy Chief Minister Rajinder Kaur Bhattal and former Kerala Chief Minister K Karunakaran, all who are facing trial for allegations of criminal misconduct.</b>
The Bench of Justices Arijit Pasayat and SH Kapadia, while dismissing the appeals of the above petitioners (except Karunakaran) held that no sanction required for prosecuting a public servant in cases he is accused of charges framed under IPC. This would mean a public servant including politicians and bureaucrats, who indulge in corruption or crime, covered under the provisions of IPC could now be prosecuted without any permission from any authority.
Only if they had committed the offence in discharge of their official duty a sanction prosecution could be needed. For example, if a police officer exceeded his power in dealing with a situation, he could be prosecuted only with due sanction.
Taking note of the "extended protection" argument put forth by petitioners, the Bench said, "The plea is clearly untenable as Section 19(1) of the PC Act is time and offence related."
Under this section, the police/investigating agency has to obtain sanction prior to registration of case against the public servant.
<span style='font-size:14pt;line-height:100%'>"This protection has certain limits and is available only when the alleged act done by the public servant is reasonably connected with the discharge of his official duty and is not merely a cloak for doing the objectionable act."</span>
For determining whether the act was done as part of official duty, the Bench noted that <b>there is a bar within Section 197 on the courts to take cognisance of such offences at the institution of the complaint. It held that the purpose of sanction under Section 197 was necessary to shield honest public servants from being harassed in discharge of their official duty. But this cannot be afforded as a protective cover to shield public servants who indulge in acts "performed under the colour of authority but which in reality are for the public servant's own pleasure or benefit."
"The offence of cheating under section 420 or for that matter offences relatable to Section 467, 468, 471 (relating to forgery) and 120 B (criminal conspiracy) can by no stretch of imagination by their very nature be regarded as having been committed by any public servant while acting or purporting to act in discharge of official duty. In such case, official status only provides an opportunity for commission of the offence" </b>the Bench observed.
However, the judgment did not clarify whether existing CVC provisions requiring sanction for officer above joint secretary level at the time of registration of case is still mandatory.
<b>Prakash Singh Badal who along with his son Sukhbir and wife who too were accused of amassing crores of rupees of disproportionate assets had relied on the question of sanction which was unacceptable to court</b>. In his case, the court noted that voluminous documents supported the allegations leveled by the complainant against him. In this backdrop, his plea stating that the complaint being filed by his political rival smacked of malafide cannot be accepted since the charge sheet is recorded based on the material placed before court.
Though in the case of Karunakaran, the court made an exception directing the High Court of Kerala to re-consider his plea of malafide within a period of three months. The court pointed a November 24, 2005 affidavit by Chief secretary in the state stating to withdraw the case against the former CM in the Pamolein scam pending trial in Kerala. With the new government in place headed by rival Chief Minister VS Achuthanandan, the government moved a subsequent affidavit stating no such move is afoot. This action aspect was not before the High Court when the matter was heard and hence was directed for reverted back by the Apex Bench.
The verdict...
<b>-No immunity to public servants engaged in misuse of office for personal benefit
-Whether sanction necessary under Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 to be determined in a trial on stage-to-stage basis
-Sanction under Section 19(1) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 is time and offence related
-Material to indicate criminal misconduct enough to frame charges against public servants
-Complaint by political opponent not sufficient ground to throw out a complaint </b>
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
This is very important Judgement, I know it may disappoint Laloo and Rabri fan club in India and even in India-forum. Atleast now political dacoits can't get cover from any where. I think now Mullah Yadav, Mayavati and other new get rich fast politicians will get new home soon.
I will start a blog in India forum "Hall of shame of Indian Politicians".
<b>SC clears decks to net corrupt babus, netas </b>
Abraham Thomas | New Delhi
Lalu, Rabri have cause to worry, D-Day on Dec 18 <!--emo&
--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif' /><!--endemo--> The Supreme Court on Wednesday closed escape routes for politicians and bureaucrats indulging in corruption and crimes. In a landmark judgment, the Court held that sanction to prosecute any public servant for an offence will not be required if it is established that the alleged act was for his/her personal gain having no bearing whatsoever with discharge of his official duty.
<b>The immediate fallout of the Court's verdict will be on RJD chief and Railway Minister Lalu Prasad and his wife Rabri Devi against whom a CBI trial court in Bihar is set to pronounce a decision on December 18 in a disproportionate asset case</b>. The Central Bureau of Investigation had lodged an assets case against the duo when he was the Bihar Chief Minister. Necessary sanction was then obtained from the Governor. But while framing of charge-sheet he became Member of Parliament and on this ground he demanded that fresh sanction be obtained from the Speaker of the Lok Sabha, of which he is a member. By this judgment, the prosecution has breathed a sigh of relief since this was the last opportunity for Lalu to block a final decision in the case.Â
<b>At the receiving end are also the likes of former Punjab Chief Minister Parkash Singh Badal, Punjab Deputy Chief Minister Rajinder Kaur Bhattal and former Kerala Chief Minister K Karunakaran, all who are facing trial for allegations of criminal misconduct.</b>
The Bench of Justices Arijit Pasayat and SH Kapadia, while dismissing the appeals of the above petitioners (except Karunakaran) held that no sanction required for prosecuting a public servant in cases he is accused of charges framed under IPC. This would mean a public servant including politicians and bureaucrats, who indulge in corruption or crime, covered under the provisions of IPC could now be prosecuted without any permission from any authority.
Only if they had committed the offence in discharge of their official duty a sanction prosecution could be needed. For example, if a police officer exceeded his power in dealing with a situation, he could be prosecuted only with due sanction.
Taking note of the "extended protection" argument put forth by petitioners, the Bench said, "The plea is clearly untenable as Section 19(1) of the PC Act is time and offence related."
Under this section, the police/investigating agency has to obtain sanction prior to registration of case against the public servant.
<span style='font-size:14pt;line-height:100%'>"This protection has certain limits and is available only when the alleged act done by the public servant is reasonably connected with the discharge of his official duty and is not merely a cloak for doing the objectionable act."</span>
For determining whether the act was done as part of official duty, the Bench noted that <b>there is a bar within Section 197 on the courts to take cognisance of such offences at the institution of the complaint. It held that the purpose of sanction under Section 197 was necessary to shield honest public servants from being harassed in discharge of their official duty. But this cannot be afforded as a protective cover to shield public servants who indulge in acts "performed under the colour of authority but which in reality are for the public servant's own pleasure or benefit."
"The offence of cheating under section 420 or for that matter offences relatable to Section 467, 468, 471 (relating to forgery) and 120 B (criminal conspiracy) can by no stretch of imagination by their very nature be regarded as having been committed by any public servant while acting or purporting to act in discharge of official duty. In such case, official status only provides an opportunity for commission of the offence" </b>the Bench observed.
However, the judgment did not clarify whether existing CVC provisions requiring sanction for officer above joint secretary level at the time of registration of case is still mandatory.
<b>Prakash Singh Badal who along with his son Sukhbir and wife who too were accused of amassing crores of rupees of disproportionate assets had relied on the question of sanction which was unacceptable to court</b>. In his case, the court noted that voluminous documents supported the allegations leveled by the complainant against him. In this backdrop, his plea stating that the complaint being filed by his political rival smacked of malafide cannot be accepted since the charge sheet is recorded based on the material placed before court.
Though in the case of Karunakaran, the court made an exception directing the High Court of Kerala to re-consider his plea of malafide within a period of three months. The court pointed a November 24, 2005 affidavit by Chief secretary in the state stating to withdraw the case against the former CM in the Pamolein scam pending trial in Kerala. With the new government in place headed by rival Chief Minister VS Achuthanandan, the government moved a subsequent affidavit stating no such move is afoot. This action aspect was not before the High Court when the matter was heard and hence was directed for reverted back by the Apex Bench.
The verdict...
<b>-No immunity to public servants engaged in misuse of office for personal benefit
-Whether sanction necessary under Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 to be determined in a trial on stage-to-stage basis
-Sanction under Section 19(1) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 is time and offence related
-Material to indicate criminal misconduct enough to frame charges against public servants
-Complaint by political opponent not sufficient ground to throw out a complaint </b>
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
This is very important Judgement, I know it may disappoint Laloo and Rabri fan club in India and even in India-forum. Atleast now political dacoits can't get cover from any where. I think now Mullah Yadav, Mayavati and other new get rich fast politicians will get new home soon.
I will start a blog in India forum "Hall of shame of Indian Politicians".