Case Note & Summary
The Supreme Court dismissed an appeal filed by Bihar State Food & Civil Supplies Corporation against the quashing of a criminal prosecution. The first respondent had been posted as an Assistant Godown Manager in the Stores. Within a period of three months, he allegedly committed defalcation and misappropriation of Rs.2,61,859.30. The misappropriation was said to have taken place during the period of 1976 and earlier. A departmental enquiry commenced on December 12, 1979. Initially, prosecution was laid in 1985 without obtaining the required sanction. The learned Magistrate discharged the respondent on the ground that sanction as required under Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 had not been obtained. In 1991, sanction was obtained and thereafter prosecution was laid. The High Court interfered with the matter exercising its jurisdiction under Section 226 on the ground that there was a delay of 15 years in laying the prosecution. The Supreme Court observed that the High Court's interference was unfortunate, but having regard to the distance of time at that stage, it was not appropriate to interfere with the matter which was at the stage of even starting of the trial. Considering the totality of the facts of abnormal delay, the Supreme Court held that it was not a fit case for interference under Article 136 of the Constitution. The appeal was accordingly dismissed.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure - Sanction for Prosecution - Section 197 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Requirement of prior sanction for prosecuting public servants; initial prosecution laid in 1985 without sanction led to discharge by Magistrate; sanction obtained in 1991 and fresh prosecution initiated.
B) Constitutional Law - Special Leave Petition under Article 136 - Delay and Laches - Supreme Court declined to interfere with High Court order quashing prosecution due to abnormal delay of 15 years; held not fit case for interference under Article 136.
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Supreme Court should interfere under Article 136 of the Constitution with the High Court's order quashing the prosecution due to a 15-year delay, despite the later procurement of sanction under Section 197 CrPC.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that due to the totality of facts including abnormal delay of 15 years, it was not a fit case for interference under Article 136 of the Constitution.
Law Points
- Prior sanction under Section 197 CrPC is mandatory for prosecuting public servants
- delay of 15 years in prosecution is abnormal and not fit for Supreme Court interference under Article 136
Case Details
1995 LawText (SC) (11) 44
K. Ramaswamy, S.B. Majmudar
1996 SCC (7) 183, JT 1995 (9) 293, 1995 SCALE (6) 733
Bihar State Food & Civil Supplies Corporation
Narendra Kumar Mishra & Anr.
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Criminal prosecution for misappropriation/defalcation by a public servant; challenge to High Court's quashing of prosecution.
Remedy Sought
Appellant Bihar State Food & Civil Supplies Corporation sought Supreme Court interference under Article 136 to set aside High Court order and continue prosecution.
Filing Reason
Prosecution was quashed by High Court due to 15-year delay, despite sanction obtained under Section 197 CrPC.
Previous Decisions
Magistrate discharged respondent in 1985 for lack of sanction; sanction obtained in 1991; fresh prosecution laid; High Court quashed prosecution on ground of delay.
Issues
Whether prior sanction under Section 197 CrPC was mandatory for prosecuting the respondent.
Whether the High Court was justified in quashing the prosecution due to 15-year delay.
Whether the Supreme Court should interfere under Article 136 given the abnormal delay.
Submissions/Arguments
Not mentioned in the judgment text.
Ratio Decidendi
Delay of 15 years in laying prosecution after initial discharge for want of sanction constitutes abnormal delay; Supreme Court declined to exercise discretionary jurisdiction under Article 136 to revive such a stale prosecution, even though sanction was subsequently obtained.
Judgment Excerpts
Within a period of three months, he committed defalcation of mis-appropriation of Rs.2,61,859.30.
The learned Magistrate discharged the respondent on the ground that the sanction as required under Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 was not obtained.
The High Court unfortunately has interfered with the matter exercising its jurisdiction under Section 226 on the ground that there was a delay of 15 years in laying the prosecution.
Having considered the totality of the fact of abnormal delay, it is not a fit case for our interference under Article 136 of the Constitution.
Procedural History
First respondent posted as Assistant Godown Manager; misappropriation of Rs.2,61,859.30 during 1976 and earlier; departmental enquiry commenced on 12 December 1979; prosecution initially laid in 1985 without sanction; Magistrate discharged respondent for noncompliance with Section 197 CrPC; sanction obtained in 1991; fresh prosecution laid thereafter; High Court quashed proceedings under Section 226 (Article 226) on ground of 15-year delay; Supreme Court granted leave but dismissed appeal on 28 November 1995.
Acts & Sections
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: Section 197
- Constitution of India: Article 136, Article 226
