STATE OF MIZORAM Vs. C SANGNGHINA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A complaint was made against the accused/respondent while he was holding the post of Director Animal Husbandry and Veterinary Department, Mizoram, Aizawl. The said complaint was made to the Superintendent of Police, ACB, Mizoram, Aizawl on 17-02-2009 by the President of PRISM alleging misappropriation/mismanagement of public money by the accused/respondent. On the basis of the complaint, the Superintendent of Police, ACB conducted an inquiry and submitted its report on 21-08-2009 with a request for registration of ACB case against the accused/respondent.

(2.) Mr. A.K. Rokhum, learned P.P for the State of Mizoram submits that the allegations leveled against the accused/respondent is very serious in nature involving misappropriation of a huge amount of public money and therefore the learned Judge, Special Court, PC Act could not have closed the trial merely due to lack of proper prosecution sanction. He also submits that the second order dated 26-08-2014 is not sustainable in law inasmuch as the prosecution/ACB had produced valid and proper prosecution sanction along with fresh charge sheet/supplementary charge sheet against the accused/respondent and therefore the same was also dismissed on frivolous consideration more particularly by coming to a conclusion that there is no review/revision under CrPc and that the same would amount to double jeopardy against the accused/respondent. He submits that it is already a settled position of law that any allegation made under Section 409/197 of the CrPC, there is no necessity of obtaining prosecution sanction and therefore the learned Judge, Special Court, PC Act should have proceeded with the trial more particularly by taking into consideration that the charge sheet leveled against the accused/respondent was serious in nature involving diversion/misusing of public money from the State exchequer. It is also submitted by the learned P.P that the case has been closed only on the question of technicality without considering the merit of the case. As the nature of the case being very serious, the learned Judge, Special Court PC Act should not have resorted to close the case merely on technical grounds. Learned P.P has placed reliance in the case of State of U.P vs- Paras Nath Singh, 2009 Supp AIR(SC) 1615, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that it is not every offence committed by a public servant while engaged in the performance of his official duty will require sanction for prosecution under Section 197(1) of the code. Further reliance has been made by the learned P.P in the judgment and order dated 29-03-2005 passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of C.S. Krishnamurthy-vs- State of Karnataka, wherein it has been held that it is no doubt true that the sanction is necessary for every prosecution of public servant, this safeguard is against the frivolous prosecution against public servant from harassment. But the sanction should not be taken as a shield to protect corrupt and dishonest public servant. He also places reliance in the order dated 17-12-2014 passed in W.P (Cr) No. 56 of 2013 by the High Court of Chhattisgarh, Bilaspur. Considering the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court as well as by the High Court, learned P.P submits that as the law is already clear that prosecution sanction is not required for the offences committed by the accused/respondent and therefore this Court should interfere with the order dated 12-09-2013 and 26-08-2014 with further direction to the learned Judge, Special Court, PC Act to proceed with the trial.

(3.) Mr. L. H. Lianhrima, learned senior counsel appearing for the accused/respondent at the outset submits that the present revision petition is hit by Article 131 of the Limitation Act inasmuch as the revision petition has been filed after more than 300 days of passing the present first order dated 12-09-2013. No explanation has been given in the revision petition with regard to the delay in filling the revision petition. As the revision petition has been filed on 26-11-2014, the petitioner should have been aware of the law holding the field and should have at least made an attempt to explain the delay. However, since no steps has been taken in that regard, on this ground alone, the revision petition deserves to be dismissed without entering into the merit of the case.