T. M. JACOB Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Writ Appeal is filed by the petitioner in O. P. No. 2150 of 1999. The prayers in the Original Petition were to call for the records leading to Ext. P2 request for sanction for prosecution purported to be under S.197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, made in Vigilance Case No. 1/97 and quash all proceedings thereto including the order granting sanction to prosecute the petitioner in the Vigilance Case No. 1 of 1997 and for the issue of a writ of mandamus forbearing the respondents from proceeding further in pursuance of the order of sanction against the petitioner in Vigilance Case No. 1/1997 on the file of the Court of Inquiry Commissioner and the Special Judge, Kozhikode. The statement of facts in the Original Petition are as follows: -

(2.) Petitioner is a member of the Kerala Legislative Assembly. He was formally a Minister in the Government of Kerala, as Minister for Irrigation. In his capacity as Minister for Irrigation, the petitioner had participated in the meeting of the Subject Committee for Irrigation constituted by the Kerala Legislative Assembly. The said Committee on 16.5.1995 took certain decisions in respect of the Karappara Kuriarkutty Project. In relation to that, long after the event, on 8.1.1998, a raid was conducted simultaneously in the residence of the petitioner at Thiruvananthapuram and his ancestral house at Koothattukulam. According to the petitioner, the documents seized did not evidence any involvement of the petitioner in any case. They were produced before the Court of Inquiry Commissioner and Special Judge, Kozhikode, where the case is pending as Vigilance Case No. 1 of 1997. It appears that the petitioner was added as 9th accused in Vigilance Case No. 1 of 1997. The charge against the petitioner is as follows:

(3.) According to the petitioner, the charge is intimately linked with the conduct of the petitioner not only as Minister for Irrigation but it directly relates to the decisions taken by the Subject Committee constituted by the Kerala Legislative Assembly. Petitioner is a public servant. To prosecute a public servant in law, sanction as prescribed under S.197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is necessary. At the time when the petitioner was added as additional accused and a report was made to take cognizance of the case against the petitioner, no such sanction had been obtained. Thereafter, a petition was presented before the Government of Kerala seeking sanction to prosecute the petitioner. On coming to know that such a request was made, the petitioner submitted a representation before the Governor of Kerala seeking an opportunity to be heard in the matter as the entire proceedings against the petitioner were barred under the provisions of the Constitution of India. According to the petitioner, a Minister or member of Legislative Assembly is protected under Art.194 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner was prosecuted for taking a decision in a house committee which is specifically covered under Art.194 of the Constitution of India. A similar question was decided by the Supreme Court in the decision reported in P. V. Narasimha Rao v. State 1998 (4) SCC 626 . Petitioner further complaints that sanction was granted by the Governor without even hearing him. Apart from contending the validity of the sanction, according to the petitioner, the entire proceedings are clearly contrary to Art.194 of the Constitution of India and contravening the same. Any person participating in the meeting of the subject committee is immune from prosecution and other proceedings under Art.194 of the Constitution of India. All the proceedings taken against the petitioner in Vigilance Case No. 1 of 1997 are therefore unconstitutional.