I MALLIKARJUNA SHARMA Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two petitions are filed under section 482 Cr P. C. for quashing the charges framed against the petitioners. Sessions Cases Nos. 10/75, 67/7, 48/66 and 4/77 were clubbed for joint trial by the Additional Metropolitan Session Judge, Hyderabad. There are 39 accused arrayed as A-1 to A-24 and A-26 to A 40. All the 39 accused have been charged under six counts. The first charge is under section 120 B r. w. sections 302, 395 and 397 I.P.C. The second charge is under sections 121 I.P.C. The third, fourth, fifth and sixth charges are under sections 121-A, 122. 123 and 124-A I.P.C. respectively. The first accused has filed Crl M. P. No. 1446 of 1977. The 15th accused file Crl. M. P. No. 1447 of 1977. Sri K, G. Kannabbi Ram the learned counsel for the petitioners has urged two grounds The first ground is that the court could not have validly taken cognizance of the offences under sections 121, 121-A, 122, 123 and 124-A I P.C. in so far as the sanction obtained Is invalid. The second ground is that the trial of the accused for the offence of conspiracy under section 120-B I. PC. is invalid in so far as the previous consent of the State Government was not obtained as required under sub-section (2) of Section 300 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The learned Public Prosecutor opposes the application contending that the sanction obtained by the prosecution is valid and that the offence of com piracy for which the accused are being prosecuted does not require the previous consent of the Government. So far as the first ground is concerned, there is an order of the Government sanctioning the prosecution It reads as follows ;

(2.) In according or withholding sanction under the Section, the Government acts purely in an executive capacity and not in a Judicial capacity. The Sanction need not be based on any legal evidence nor as it necessary that the authority should give reasons for sanctioning the prosecution or for withholding the prosecution The order of sanction in the instant case clearly shows that the Inspector General of Police, Hyderabad wrote a letter and also forwarded the preliminary charge-gheet to the Government. On a perusal of the facts contained in the preliminary charge-sheet, the Government were satisfied that the accused persons should be tried for offences punishable under sections 121. 121-A. 122. 123 and 124-A I.P.C. and also under Sec. 120-B read with Sections 302,395 and 397 of the Penal Code.

(3.) The preliminary charge sheet runs to 16 foolscap tvped pages and the facts staged therein constitute the offences for which the sanction was accorded. The essence of the matter does not He in the description of the document as a "preliminary charge-sheet". What is essential is whether the authority competent to sanction the prosecution was appraised of all the necessary facts constituting the offences for which sanction is accorded. As pointed out bv Sri Kannabhi Ram, no doubt the preliminary charge-sheet is dated 17-7-1974 while the final charge sheet was filed on 19 8-74. It is argued that on 12-8-74 when the sanction was accorded, the sanctioning authority was in possession of only those facts as were contained in the preliminary charge-sheet and was not aware of the facts contained in the final charge and thit therefore the ranction is bad. We are unable to find any substance in this submission: The facts alleged in the final charge-sheet are the same". The report dated 17-7 74 was styled as preliminary charge-sheet by the prosecuting agency only because by that time the necessary sanction to prosecute the accused was not obtained. Yet another contention of Sri Kannabhi Ram is that through the preliminary charge-sheet or otherwise the Investigating Officer did not bring to the notice of the Government that the accused persons were already prosecuted for the offences of murders and dacoities, for murders and dacoities were brought to the notice of Government, the Government might not have sanctioned the prosecution in the instant case. We do not find any substance in this submission also. What all is necessary for the sanctioning authority to examine is whether there are sufficient facts constituting the offences for which sanction is to be accorded and the facts contained in the preliminary charge-sheet in the instant case do disclose the offences for which sanction was accorded So far as ths Second ground is concerned, sub-section (2) of Section 300 Cr P.C. reads as follows: