MADHYA PRADESH SPECIAL POLICE ESTABLISHMENT Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These are two Letters Patent Appeals by the M.P. Special Police Establishment challengng the order of the single Bench by which the sanction for prosecution of the two Ministers under Section 197, Cr.P.C. accorded by the Governor for the offence punishable under Section 120-B, I.P.C. has been quashed.

(2.) Bisahu Ram Yadav and Rajendra Kumar Singh were Ministers in the Government of Madhya Pradesh. A complaint was made to the Lokayukta against them for releasing 7.5 acresw of land illegally to its earlier owners which had been acquired by the Indore Development Authority from them. The case was registered on 31-3-1998 and investigated by the Special Police Establishment (SPE) constituted under the M.P. Special Police Establishment Act, 1947 and functioning under the Superintendence of the Lokayukta. After investigation the SPE was of the view that there is sufficient ground for prosecution of the two Ministers under Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and also for the offence of "criminal conspiracy" punishable under Section 120-B, I.P.C. The SPE sought sanction of the State Government under Section 197, Cr.P.C. in respect of the offence under Section 120-B, I.P.C. By this time the two Ministers had resigned and ceased to occupy that position. The question of sanction for prosecution was considered by the Council of Ministers in its meeting on 3-9-1998 and the sanction was declined by a resolution giving detailed reasons. The ground for refusing the sanction was that in its opinion there was no prima facie case against them. It was stated in the resolution :

(3.) The two Ministers filed two separate writ petitions under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution assailing the order of the Governor. The Single Bench after considering the arguments of the eminent counsel appearng from both the sides held that the sanction for the prosecution of the Ministers is not a function which could be exercised by the Governor "in his discretion" within the meaning of the words used in Article 163 of the Constitution and therefore he could not accord the sanction and thereby act contrary to the decision of the Council of Ministers. It has been observed that the principle of bias cannot be applied against the entire Council of Ministers and the doctrine of necessity cannot be invoked on the facts of the case to enable the Governor to act in his discretion in this matter.