- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Ramanand Chaudhary v. State Of Bihar And Others
Factual and Procedural Background
Ramanand Chaudhary, a Circle Inspector in the Revenue Department of the State of Bihar, was accused by Manik Singh of demanding a bribe of Rs 200. A raid on 30-03-1979 allegedly recovered two one-hundred-rupee notes from the appellant. No prosecutorial steps were taken for approximately six years. On 28-01-1985 the Revenue Commissioner sought the Public Prosecutor’s opinion on whether to grant sanction for prosecution. In a 17-page opinion the Public Prosecutor advised against sanction, calling the case “full of absurdities, improbabilities and infirmities.”
Accepting that advice, the Revenue Commissioner refused sanction on 03-05-1988. The Deputy Inspector General of Police (Vigilance) later requested reconsideration. After a second advisory process in which the Public Prosecutor again opposed prosecution (letter dated 22-03-1990) but suggested departmental action, the Commissioner nevertheless granted sanction on 27-03-1990. The Special Judge (Vigilance), South Bihar, Patna, took cognizance on 21-11-1990.
The appellant invoked the High Court’s inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code to quash the criminal proceedings; the High Court dismissed the petition in limine. The present opinion addresses the appellant’s further challenge to the continued prosecution.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the Revenue Commissioner, having once refused to grant sanction for prosecution, possessed the authority to review and reverse that decision without affording the appellant an opportunity of hearing.
- Whether, in the circumstances of prolonged delay and repeated prosecutorial advisories against criminal action, the continuation of the criminal proceedings would amount to an abuse of process of court.
Arguments of the Parties
Appellant's Arguments
- The Revenue Commissioner lacked jurisdiction to review his earlier refusal and issue a fresh sanction for prosecution.
- Even if such a review power existed, principles of natural justice required that the appellant be given an opportunity to be heard before any reversal of the earlier order.
The opinion does not record any detailed arguments advanced by the prosecution or the State.
Table of Precedents Cited
No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The Court expressly declined to adjudicate the legal questions surrounding the Commissioner’s power to review his own sanction order. Instead, it exercised its discretion to quash the prosecution on the “peculiar facts and circumstances” of the case, emphasizing:
- An unexplained six-year hiatus between the raid and any move toward prosecution.
- Two consistent and comprehensive opinions from the Public Prosecutor stating that the evidence was deficient and advising against prosecution.
- The Commissioner’s own initial finding that no sufficient cause existed, followed by an unexplained volte-face prompted only by a request from the Deputy Inspector General (Vigilance).
- The passage of more than thirteen years since the alleged offence, making further prosecution oppressive and a “travesty of justice.”
In these circumstances, the Court concluded that allowing the trial to proceed would entail undue hardship and prolonged litigation for the appellant without a corresponding public interest benefit.
Holding and Implications
Prosecution quashed; all proceedings before the Special Judge (Vigilance), South Bihar, Patna, set aside.
The decision terminates the criminal case against the appellant with immediate effect. The Court did not lay down new legal principles on sanction review, limiting the ruling’s impact to the specific factual matrix before it.
Order
1. Ramanand Chaudhary, the appellant, was employed as Circle Inspector in the Revenue Department of the State of Bihar. One Manik Singh filed a complaint before the police that the appellant had demanded Rs 200 from him as bribe for getting his work done in the Revenue Department. As a consequence a raid was conducted on 30-3-1979 and it is alleged that two currency notes of the value of one hundred each were recovered from the appellant. Thereafter no further action was taken by the police for about six years and it was only on 28-1-1985 that the opinion of the Public Prosecutor was sought by the Revenue Commissioner to enable him to consider the question of grant of sanction for the prosecution of the appellant. In a detailed opinion running into 17 pages the Public Prosecutor discussed the material collected by the investigating officer and finally came to the conclusion as under:
“Taking into account the facts and law stated above, I am of the opinion that the present case is full of absurdities, improbabilities and infirmities and it is not a fit case in which sanction for prosecution be granted.”
2. The Revenue Commissioner, Patna considered the opinion of the Public Prosecutor and by his order dated 3-5-1988 refused to grant the sanction. The said order runs as under:
“Regarding the aforesaid subject and your Letter No. Nig. 23/79 Nig. 1016 dated 17-2-1988 I have to say that I am satisfied after going through the case diary and other papers that there is neither sufficient cause to order for prosecution against Shri Ramanand Chaudhary, Circle Inspector, Nasariganj District, Rohtas upon which basis the order of sanction for prosecution be issued against him.
Therefore, it is not possible to allow sanction for prosecution against Shri Ramanand Chaudhary, Circle Inspector, Nasariganj District, Rohtas in Vigilance PS Case No. 23(3) of 1979.”
3. The Deputy Inspector General of Police (Vigilance) reopened the matter and by his letter dated 25-8-1989 requested the Revenue Commissioner to reconsider the question of the prosecution of the appellant. The Commissioner again asked for the opinion of the Public Prosecutor who reiterated his earlier opinion and by his letter dated 22-3-1990 opined that the case against the appellant was not fit for criminal prosecution. He, however, recommended that departmental action may be taken against him. The Revenue Commissioner, however, by his order dated 27-3-1990 granted sanction to prosecute the appellant. The Special Judge (Vigilance), South Bihar, Patna took cognizance of the case on 21-11-1990. The appellant invoked the jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code praying for the quashing of criminal proceedings against him. The High Court dismissed the application in limine.
4. Mr R.K Jain, learned counsel for the appellant has challenged the criminal prosecution against the appellant, inter alia, on the ground that the Revenue Commissioner having refused to grant sanction in the first instance had no jurisdiction to review the said order and grant sanction by a subsequent order. In any case, according to him, before reviewing the earlier order it was obligatory for him to have afforded an opportunity of hearing to the appellant.
5. It is not necessary to go into the legal points raised by Mr Jain as we are inclined to quash the prosecution against the appellant in the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case. After the raid no action was taken by the prosecution for six years. The Public Prosecutor consistently opined that no criminal case was made out against the appellant. The Commissioner on independent consideration refused to grant the sanction but later on at the asking of the DIG (Vigilance) he changed his view. The prosecution against the appellant is pending for over a period of thirteen years and it would be a travesty of justice to permit the prosecution at this stage which would mean that the appellant would suffer the trial/appeal for another decade. In view of the facts and circumstances of this case we quash the prosecution pending against the appellant and also the proceedings before the Special Judge (Vigilance), South Bihar, Patna who took cognizance of the case on 21-11-1990.
Alert