Abhay Singh Chautala v. C.B.I.

FACTS

• The judgment addressed two Special Leave Petitions (SLP) filed by Abhay Singh Chautala and Shri Ajay Singh Chautala.

• Both appellants were being tried for offences under Sections 13(1)(e) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption (PC) Act and Section 109 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

• Separate charge sheets were filed based on CBI investigations, alleging that they had accumulated wealth disproportionate to their known sources of income while working as Members of Legislative Assembly (MLA).

• It was alleged that Abhay Singh Chautala had amassed wealth worth over Rs. 1,19 crore, which was 339.26% of his known sources of income during the check period (7.6.2000 and 8.3.2005).

• An objection was raised before the Special Judge regarding the absence of sanction to prosecute under Section 19 of the PC Act against both appellants.

• The Special Judge held that the charge sheet did not allege the appellants had abused their current office as MLAs.

• The High Court dismissed the subsequent petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

ISSUES

1. Whether the sanction under Section 19 of The Prevention of Corruption Act was necessary against both the appellants.

2. Whether the trial in progress against both appellants is a valid trial, given the common question of sanction.

3. Whether, if on the date of cognizance, the appellant is not a public servant, there will be no question of any sanction.

JUDGEMENT

• The apex court ruled that the appellants in both appeals abused different offices than the one they held on the date of cognizance, thereby excluding the need for sanction under Section 19 of the Act.

• The appeals were dismissed without merit.

OBSERVATION

• Relevant Time is Cognizance Date: The relevant time for determining the need for sanction is the date on which the cognizance is taken.

• Abuse of a Different Office: If the public servant has abused some other office than the one he is currently holding (on the date of cognizance), he could be tried without a sanction.

• No Sanction Needed:

  • If on the date of cognizance, the appellant is not a public servant, there will be no question of any sanction.

  • If he continues to be a public servant but in a different capacity or holding a different office than the one which is alleged to have been abused, still there will be no question of sanction.

• Conclusion on the Case: In the case of the present appellants, there was no question of there being any doubt because basically there was no question of the appellants' getting any protection by a sanction.

COMMENTARIES

• It clearly follows from the reading of the judgments in Abhay Singh Chautala and Parkash Singh Badal that if the public servant had abused entirely different office or offices than which he was holding on the date when cognizance was taken, there was no necessity of sanction under Section 19 of the PC Act.

• It is also made clear that where the public servant had abused the office which he held in the check-up period, but had ceased to hold "that office" or was in a different office, then sanction would not be necessary.

• This principle would encompass and cover the cases of all public servants, including government employees.