1
ITEM NO.34 COURT NO.12 SECTION II
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No(s). 6241/2012
(Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 13/03/2012
in SBCRM No. 332/2009 passed by the High Court Of Rajasthan At
Jodhpur)
MANA RAM Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
SOHAN LAL AND ANR. Respondent(s)
Date : 04/05/2017 This petition was called on for hearing today.
CORAM :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN MISHRA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMITAVA ROY
For Petitioner(s) Mr. Manoj Prasad, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Ashutosh Dubey, Adv.
Mr. Sadashiv Gupta, Adv.
Mr. Rohit Singh,Adv.
For Respondent(s) Mr. Rishabh Sancheti, Adv.
Mr. T. Mahipal,Adv.
Mr. Rahul Verma, Adv.
Ms. Ruchi Kohli,Adv.
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
O R D E R
Leave granted.
Appeal is allowed in terms of the signed order.
(NEELAM GULATI)
COURT MASTER (TAPAN KR. CHAKRABORTY)
COURT MASTER
(Signed order is placed on the file)
1
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 893 OF 2017
[ARISING OUT OF S.L.P.(CRL.) NO.6241 OF 2012]
MANA RAM …APPELLANT
VERSUS
SOHAN LAL AND ANOTHER …RESPONDENTS
O R D E R
Leave granted
2. The impugnment is of the decision of the High Court contained in
the judgment and order dated 13.03.2012 rendered in S.B. Criminal
Miscellaneous Petition No.332/2009 thereby discharging the
respondent No.1 from the charge of offence under Section 167 India
Penal Code (for short hereinafter referred to as the “IPC”). Thereby, the
order of the learned Trial Court framing charge under the
aforementioned section of law and the dismissal of the revision
petition questioning the same by the jurisdictional Sessions Court,
have been set aside.
2
3. We have heard Mr. Manoj Prasad, learned senior counsel for the
appellant, M/s. Rishabh Sancheti & Mr. Rahul Verma, learned
counsel for the respondents No.1 & 2 respectively.
4. The essential facts need be outlined at the outset. The appellant
had filed a complaint in the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Sriganganagar, Rajasthan against the respondent No.1 and one Shera
Ram under Sections 166, 167, 420, 466, 120B IPC to the effect that
following an agreement for sale of an agricultural land admeasuring
12 bigha, 5 biswa of Murrabba No.37, Kila No.13 to 25 with the owner
Shera Ram (respondent No.2 therein) and on payment of
Rs.2,52,000/- had taken over possession thereof. According to the
appellant/complainant since thereafter, he had been cultivating the
land and in continuation of the process of sale, he on 21.07.1990 paid
a further amount of Rs.10,000/- to Shera Ram against which the
latter executed a receipt. Thereafter, the appellant instituted a suit for
specific performance of the contract in the Court of the District and
Sessions Judge, Sriganganagar wherein the Trial Court, as prayed for,
also passed an order of injunction directing maintenance of status quo
of the land involved. The appellant/complainant has stated that the
factum of the order of injunction granted by the Trial Court was duly
communicated to the respondent No.1 who at the relevant time was
3
the Patwari of the region concerned. Reiterating that the appellant
thus was in possession of the land since 15.04.1987 and his name on
the basis of such possession and cultivation thereof was entered in
Canal Girdavari he asserted that irrigation slips were also issued by
the concerned Patwari from time to time. He also annexed to the
complaint, the said documents. The appellant/complainant averred
that the respondent No.1 (in the complaint) was in the capacity of
Patwari, fully aware of his possession and cultivation of the land since
15.04.1987 so much so that he issued receipts in endorsement of this
fact after collecting the land revenue. This was as late as on
12.08.2005.
5. The appellant/complainant alleged that in spite of the above, as
Shera Ram, his vendor nursed a malicious intention of selling the land
again for pecuniary gains, be colluded with the respondent No.1 and
in furtherance of the conspiracy between the two, got prepared a false
report by the respondent No.1 that the land was in possession of the
Shera Ram. According to the appellant/complainant this was effected
by making false entries in the revenue records.
6. Having come to learn of this fraud, the appellant/complainant
lodged a complaint with the District Collector, Sriganganagar following
4
which the S.D.M. (Revenue) did visit the spot along with the Patwari
on 28.10.2005 and submitted a report affirming that the land was in
his (appellant/complainant) cultivating possession. A copy of the
report was also annexed to the complaint. The appellant/complainant
thus alleged that the respondent No.1 in making the false entry and
issuing a report on the basis thereof grossly misused his official
position as a public servant and thus sought for the prosecution of the
respondents under the above-mentioned sections of law.
7. As the records reveal, following an investigation by the police as
ordered by the Court, charge-sheet was submitted against the
respondent No.1 and the Trial Court took cognizance of the offences
alleged and fixed the case for framing of charge. At that stage the
respondent No.1 filed an application under Section 197 Cr.P.C.,
questioning his prosecution sans necessary sanction thereunder.
8. The learned Trial Court after hearing the parties and on a
thorough consideration of the allegations made in the complaint and
the statements of the appellant/complainant and the witnesses
rejected the objection and framed charge against the respondent No.1
under Section 167 IPC by order dated 10.12.2008. Significantly, the
learned Trial Court while rejecting the respondent No.1's objection
based on 197 Cr.P.C. did take note of the documents furnished by the
5
appellant/complainant in support of the accusations and concluded
that having regard to the allegations made, the respondent No.1 was
not entitled to the protection under Section 197 Cr.P.C.
9. The charge as framed by the Trial Court is extracted hereunder:
“ That on or around dated 22.09.2005 while working at the
post of Patwari Halqa 11, L.N.P. as public service, you
prepared a false report about possession and cultivation of
accused Bheraram on the land comprising Murabba No.37,
Kile No.13 to 25 area 12 Bigha 5 Biswa as a public service
while you had got the knowledge that complainant
Manaram has been enjoying possession on the said land.
You indulged in such act with the intentions or knowingly
well that it would cause loss to complainant Manaram.
Thus, your act amounts to offence punishable under
section 167 Cr.P.C. and is under my cognizance .”
10. The revision petition filed by the respondent No.1 against the
above decision of the Trial Court was dismissed by the Sessions
Judge, Sriganganagar by his order dated 10.02.2009. The challenge
before the High Court was laid thereafter.
11. Parallelly however, acting on the complaint lodged with the
District Collector, Land Revenue, Sriganganagar a departmental
enquiry was conducted against the respondent No.1 on the following
charge:
“ That while working at Patwari Division 11, L.N.P. sale
certificate of land comprising Kila No.13 to 25 total area
12.05 Bigha of Murabba no.37 of Chuk 11 L.N.P. on
22.09.05. Instead of submitting report of Point No.1, 3 & 7
on the basis of the factuality, one of the parties was
unlawfully benefitted and from which unnecessary dispute
6
arose. Thus, you kept the higher officers misconceived by
acting contrary to your responsibility which was contrary
to the responsibility entrusted to you .”
12. The record attest that such enquiry under Rule 16(4) of the
Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeals) Rules,
1958 was attended to by the respondent No.1 and the Enquiry Officer
after hearing the parties and on a detailed consideration of the
evidence adduced, held that the charge levelled against him stood
proved. Qua the testimony of the Tahsildar, Ganganagar who deposed
that as and when proposals are sought from Patwari for issuing a
Sanad, the relevant Rules required that statement of the neighbours at
the site be recorded and a true report be submitted, the Enquiry
Officer observed that no such record had been maintained with regard
to the report of possession and cultivation and that the Delinquent
Officer ought to have inspected the site and thereafter should have
submitted the report instead of doing so only on the basis of the
jamabandi. The Enquiry Officer was thus unmistakably clear that the
respondent No.1 had issued the report in question without either
visiting the site or making any enquiry with regard to the actual
possession of the land and the cultivation thereon.
13. The Disciplinary Authority i.e. the District Collector (LA),
Sriganganagar by its order dated 21.04.2009, on a consideration of
7
this report and other materials available on record accepted the
finding in support of the charge and awarded the penalty of stoppage
of two annual increments of the respondent No.1 with cumulative
effect.
14. In the appeal filed by the Delinquent Officer, the Divisional
Commissioner, Bikarner Division, Bikaner, by his order dated
19.05.2010 however exonerated him of the charge. A plain perusal of
this order would reveal that the Appellate Authority was of the view
that the report having been issued by the respondent No.1 on the
basis of the available records, the charge had remained unproved.
Noticeably in arriving at this conclusion, the Appellate Authority
disregarded the requirement of the Rules, as noted by the Enquiry
Officer of the visit to the site and an enquiry at the spot, by recording
the statements of the neighbours as the indispensable essentials to be
complied with before issuance of a report as was submitted.
15. In the above backdrop Mr. Manoj Prasad, learned senior counsel
for the appellant has emphatically urged that as the charge framed
against the respondent No.1 on the basis of the allegations in the
complaint and the evidence in support thereof is distinctly different
from the one enquired into in the departmental proceedings, the High
Court was in error in contemplating otherwise and in quashing the
8
criminal prosecution. The charges in the two proceedings being
patently different and the scope of scrutiny relatable thereto,
apparently distinguishable, the impugned order if allowed to stand
would be a travesty of justice, he urged.
16. Per contra, Mr. Rishabh Sancheti & Mr. Rahul Verma, learned
counsel for the respondents has insistently argued that a bare perusal
of the two charges would demonstrate the absolute identicalness
thereof and thus as rightly held by the High Court, continuance of
the criminal prosecution against the respondent No.1 would be an
abuse of the process of Court.
17. We have devoted our focused consideration to the rival
contentions. In our estimate, a bare perusal of the charge in the
departmental enquiry does not permit a deduction that it is absolutely
identical to the one framed by the Trial Court in the case registered on
the complaint filed by the appellant. Whereas the imputation enquired
into in the departmental enquiry was limited to the submission of
incorrect report on point 1, 3 and 7 thereby acting contrary to the
responsibility entrusted to the respondent No.1, the charge for the
criminal trial encompasses the additional dimension of his sustained
knowledge of the appellant’s possession of the land involved while
submitting a false report to the contrary with the dishonest intention
9
of causing loss to him. Thus allegations of guilty mind and dishonest
intention are the additional facets engrafted in the charge framed by
the Trial Court for the prosecution of the respondent No.1 which can
by no means be even inferred to be same or similar to the allegation
enquired into in the departmental proceeding. Most significantly as
well, the finding of the Enquiry Officer and affirmed by the
Disciplinary Authority that as per the prevalent Rules, the report in
question ought to have been submitted following a visit to the site and
an enquiry thereat by recording the statements of the neighbours, has
not been reversed by the Appellate Authority in the departmental
appeal. There is neither any finding to the effect that the respondent
No.1 did visit the site and conduct the procedure as prescribed by the
Rules prior to the submission of the report. In this premise, the very
foundation of the challenge to the order of framing of charge by the
Trial Court against the respondent No.1 and the affirmation thereof by
the Revisional Court is rendered non est.
18. We do not wish to heap the narration with the pronouncements
of this Court qua the permissibility of simultaneous departmental
proceedings and criminal prosecution on the same charge or
accusation. Suffice it to refer to the decision rendered in Radhey
Shyam Kejriwal Vs. State of West Bengal and another – (2011) 3
SCC 581 wherein this Court, following a survey of the decisions on the
10
issue has underlined that the two are independent of each other and
can be launched and proceeded with simultaneously. It is only when
and in a case where the charge in both the proceedings is the same
and Delinquent Officer is exonerated therefrom in the departmental
proceeding which concludes earlier in point of time, that the criminal
prosecution on the same set of facts and circumstances ought not to
be allowed to continue more particularly in view of the prescription of
higher standard of proof in criminal cases. However, exoneration in
the departmental proceeding on a technical ground would not be a bar
for the criminal prosecution to continue.
19. In the attendant facts and circumstances, having regard to the
dissimilarity in the charges as is apparent on the face of the records,
we are of the unhesitant opinion that the High Court had erred in
holding otherwise and in essence, quashing the criminal prosecution
against the respondent No.1. The impugned judgment and order of the
High Court is thus set aside and the matter is remanded to the Trial
Court to be proceeded with in accordance with law. We make it clear
that the observations made hereinabove are strictly limited to the
adjudication on the issue raised before this Court and do not have any
bearing on the merit of the charge and the learned Trial Court would
11
decide the case as per law without being in any way influenced
thereby.
…........................................J.
[ARUN MISHRA]
…........................................J.
[AMITAVA ROY]
NEW DELHI;
MAY 04, 2017.
ITEM NO.34 COURT NO.12 SECTION II
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No(s). 6241/2012
(Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 13/03/2012
in SBCRM No. 332/2009 passed by the High Court Of Rajasthan At
Jodhpur)
MANA RAM Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
SOHAN LAL AND ANR. Respondent(s)
Date : 04/05/2017 This petition was called on for hearing today.
CORAM :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN MISHRA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMITAVA ROY
For Petitioner(s) Mr. Manoj Prasad, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Ashutosh Dubey, Adv.
Mr. Sadashiv Gupta, Adv.
Mr. Rohit Singh,Adv.
For Respondent(s) Mr. Rishabh Sancheti, Adv.
Mr. T. Mahipal,Adv.
Mr. Rahul Verma, Adv.
Ms. Ruchi Kohli,Adv.
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
O R D E R
Leave granted.
Appeal is allowed in terms of the signed order.
(NEELAM GULATI)
COURT MASTER (TAPAN KR. CHAKRABORTY)
COURT MASTER
(Signed order is placed on the file)
1
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 893 OF 2017
[ARISING OUT OF S.L.P.(CRL.) NO.6241 OF 2012]
MANA RAM …APPELLANT
VERSUS
SOHAN LAL AND ANOTHER …RESPONDENTS
O R D E R
Leave granted
2. The impugnment is of the decision of the High Court contained in
the judgment and order dated 13.03.2012 rendered in S.B. Criminal
Miscellaneous Petition No.332/2009 thereby discharging the
respondent No.1 from the charge of offence under Section 167 India
Penal Code (for short hereinafter referred to as the “IPC”). Thereby, the
order of the learned Trial Court framing charge under the
aforementioned section of law and the dismissal of the revision
petition questioning the same by the jurisdictional Sessions Court,
have been set aside.
2
3. We have heard Mr. Manoj Prasad, learned senior counsel for the
appellant, M/s. Rishabh Sancheti & Mr. Rahul Verma, learned
counsel for the respondents No.1 & 2 respectively.
4. The essential facts need be outlined at the outset. The appellant
had filed a complaint in the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Sriganganagar, Rajasthan against the respondent No.1 and one Shera
Ram under Sections 166, 167, 420, 466, 120B IPC to the effect that
following an agreement for sale of an agricultural land admeasuring
12 bigha, 5 biswa of Murrabba No.37, Kila No.13 to 25 with the owner
Shera Ram (respondent No.2 therein) and on payment of
Rs.2,52,000/- had taken over possession thereof. According to the
appellant/complainant since thereafter, he had been cultivating the
land and in continuation of the process of sale, he on 21.07.1990 paid
a further amount of Rs.10,000/- to Shera Ram against which the
latter executed a receipt. Thereafter, the appellant instituted a suit for
specific performance of the contract in the Court of the District and
Sessions Judge, Sriganganagar wherein the Trial Court, as prayed for,
also passed an order of injunction directing maintenance of status quo
of the land involved. The appellant/complainant has stated that the
factum of the order of injunction granted by the Trial Court was duly
communicated to the respondent No.1 who at the relevant time was
3
the Patwari of the region concerned. Reiterating that the appellant
thus was in possession of the land since 15.04.1987 and his name on
the basis of such possession and cultivation thereof was entered in
Canal Girdavari he asserted that irrigation slips were also issued by
the concerned Patwari from time to time. He also annexed to the
complaint, the said documents. The appellant/complainant averred
that the respondent No.1 (in the complaint) was in the capacity of
Patwari, fully aware of his possession and cultivation of the land since
15.04.1987 so much so that he issued receipts in endorsement of this
fact after collecting the land revenue. This was as late as on
12.08.2005.
5. The appellant/complainant alleged that in spite of the above, as
Shera Ram, his vendor nursed a malicious intention of selling the land
again for pecuniary gains, be colluded with the respondent No.1 and
in furtherance of the conspiracy between the two, got prepared a false
report by the respondent No.1 that the land was in possession of the
Shera Ram. According to the appellant/complainant this was effected
by making false entries in the revenue records.
6. Having come to learn of this fraud, the appellant/complainant
lodged a complaint with the District Collector, Sriganganagar following
4
which the S.D.M. (Revenue) did visit the spot along with the Patwari
on 28.10.2005 and submitted a report affirming that the land was in
his (appellant/complainant) cultivating possession. A copy of the
report was also annexed to the complaint. The appellant/complainant
thus alleged that the respondent No.1 in making the false entry and
issuing a report on the basis thereof grossly misused his official
position as a public servant and thus sought for the prosecution of the
respondents under the above-mentioned sections of law.
7. As the records reveal, following an investigation by the police as
ordered by the Court, charge-sheet was submitted against the
respondent No.1 and the Trial Court took cognizance of the offences
alleged and fixed the case for framing of charge. At that stage the
respondent No.1 filed an application under Section 197 Cr.P.C.,
questioning his prosecution sans necessary sanction thereunder.
8. The learned Trial Court after hearing the parties and on a
thorough consideration of the allegations made in the complaint and
the statements of the appellant/complainant and the witnesses
rejected the objection and framed charge against the respondent No.1
under Section 167 IPC by order dated 10.12.2008. Significantly, the
learned Trial Court while rejecting the respondent No.1's objection
based on 197 Cr.P.C. did take note of the documents furnished by the
5
appellant/complainant in support of the accusations and concluded
that having regard to the allegations made, the respondent No.1 was
not entitled to the protection under Section 197 Cr.P.C.
9. The charge as framed by the Trial Court is extracted hereunder:
“ That on or around dated 22.09.2005 while working at the
post of Patwari Halqa 11, L.N.P. as public service, you
prepared a false report about possession and cultivation of
accused Bheraram on the land comprising Murabba No.37,
Kile No.13 to 25 area 12 Bigha 5 Biswa as a public service
while you had got the knowledge that complainant
Manaram has been enjoying possession on the said land.
You indulged in such act with the intentions or knowingly
well that it would cause loss to complainant Manaram.
Thus, your act amounts to offence punishable under
section 167 Cr.P.C. and is under my cognizance .”
10. The revision petition filed by the respondent No.1 against the
above decision of the Trial Court was dismissed by the Sessions
Judge, Sriganganagar by his order dated 10.02.2009. The challenge
before the High Court was laid thereafter.
11. Parallelly however, acting on the complaint lodged with the
District Collector, Land Revenue, Sriganganagar a departmental
enquiry was conducted against the respondent No.1 on the following
charge:
“ That while working at Patwari Division 11, L.N.P. sale
certificate of land comprising Kila No.13 to 25 total area
12.05 Bigha of Murabba no.37 of Chuk 11 L.N.P. on
22.09.05. Instead of submitting report of Point No.1, 3 & 7
on the basis of the factuality, one of the parties was
unlawfully benefitted and from which unnecessary dispute
6
arose. Thus, you kept the higher officers misconceived by
acting contrary to your responsibility which was contrary
to the responsibility entrusted to you .”
12. The record attest that such enquiry under Rule 16(4) of the
Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeals) Rules,
1958 was attended to by the respondent No.1 and the Enquiry Officer
after hearing the parties and on a detailed consideration of the
evidence adduced, held that the charge levelled against him stood
proved. Qua the testimony of the Tahsildar, Ganganagar who deposed
that as and when proposals are sought from Patwari for issuing a
Sanad, the relevant Rules required that statement of the neighbours at
the site be recorded and a true report be submitted, the Enquiry
Officer observed that no such record had been maintained with regard
to the report of possession and cultivation and that the Delinquent
Officer ought to have inspected the site and thereafter should have
submitted the report instead of doing so only on the basis of the
jamabandi. The Enquiry Officer was thus unmistakably clear that the
respondent No.1 had issued the report in question without either
visiting the site or making any enquiry with regard to the actual
possession of the land and the cultivation thereon.
13. The Disciplinary Authority i.e. the District Collector (LA),
Sriganganagar by its order dated 21.04.2009, on a consideration of
7
this report and other materials available on record accepted the
finding in support of the charge and awarded the penalty of stoppage
of two annual increments of the respondent No.1 with cumulative
effect.
14. In the appeal filed by the Delinquent Officer, the Divisional
Commissioner, Bikarner Division, Bikaner, by his order dated
19.05.2010 however exonerated him of the charge. A plain perusal of
this order would reveal that the Appellate Authority was of the view
that the report having been issued by the respondent No.1 on the
basis of the available records, the charge had remained unproved.
Noticeably in arriving at this conclusion, the Appellate Authority
disregarded the requirement of the Rules, as noted by the Enquiry
Officer of the visit to the site and an enquiry at the spot, by recording
the statements of the neighbours as the indispensable essentials to be
complied with before issuance of a report as was submitted.
15. In the above backdrop Mr. Manoj Prasad, learned senior counsel
for the appellant has emphatically urged that as the charge framed
against the respondent No.1 on the basis of the allegations in the
complaint and the evidence in support thereof is distinctly different
from the one enquired into in the departmental proceedings, the High
Court was in error in contemplating otherwise and in quashing the
8
criminal prosecution. The charges in the two proceedings being
patently different and the scope of scrutiny relatable thereto,
apparently distinguishable, the impugned order if allowed to stand
would be a travesty of justice, he urged.
16. Per contra, Mr. Rishabh Sancheti & Mr. Rahul Verma, learned
counsel for the respondents has insistently argued that a bare perusal
of the two charges would demonstrate the absolute identicalness
thereof and thus as rightly held by the High Court, continuance of
the criminal prosecution against the respondent No.1 would be an
abuse of the process of Court.
17. We have devoted our focused consideration to the rival
contentions. In our estimate, a bare perusal of the charge in the
departmental enquiry does not permit a deduction that it is absolutely
identical to the one framed by the Trial Court in the case registered on
the complaint filed by the appellant. Whereas the imputation enquired
into in the departmental enquiry was limited to the submission of
incorrect report on point 1, 3 and 7 thereby acting contrary to the
responsibility entrusted to the respondent No.1, the charge for the
criminal trial encompasses the additional dimension of his sustained
knowledge of the appellant’s possession of the land involved while
submitting a false report to the contrary with the dishonest intention
9
of causing loss to him. Thus allegations of guilty mind and dishonest
intention are the additional facets engrafted in the charge framed by
the Trial Court for the prosecution of the respondent No.1 which can
by no means be even inferred to be same or similar to the allegation
enquired into in the departmental proceeding. Most significantly as
well, the finding of the Enquiry Officer and affirmed by the
Disciplinary Authority that as per the prevalent Rules, the report in
question ought to have been submitted following a visit to the site and
an enquiry thereat by recording the statements of the neighbours, has
not been reversed by the Appellate Authority in the departmental
appeal. There is neither any finding to the effect that the respondent
No.1 did visit the site and conduct the procedure as prescribed by the
Rules prior to the submission of the report. In this premise, the very
foundation of the challenge to the order of framing of charge by the
Trial Court against the respondent No.1 and the affirmation thereof by
the Revisional Court is rendered non est.
18. We do not wish to heap the narration with the pronouncements
of this Court qua the permissibility of simultaneous departmental
proceedings and criminal prosecution on the same charge or
accusation. Suffice it to refer to the decision rendered in Radhey
Shyam Kejriwal Vs. State of West Bengal and another – (2011) 3
SCC 581 wherein this Court, following a survey of the decisions on the
10
issue has underlined that the two are independent of each other and
can be launched and proceeded with simultaneously. It is only when
and in a case where the charge in both the proceedings is the same
and Delinquent Officer is exonerated therefrom in the departmental
proceeding which concludes earlier in point of time, that the criminal
prosecution on the same set of facts and circumstances ought not to
be allowed to continue more particularly in view of the prescription of
higher standard of proof in criminal cases. However, exoneration in
the departmental proceeding on a technical ground would not be a bar
for the criminal prosecution to continue.
19. In the attendant facts and circumstances, having regard to the
dissimilarity in the charges as is apparent on the face of the records,
we are of the unhesitant opinion that the High Court had erred in
holding otherwise and in essence, quashing the criminal prosecution
against the respondent No.1. The impugned judgment and order of the
High Court is thus set aside and the matter is remanded to the Trial
Court to be proceeded with in accordance with law. We make it clear
that the observations made hereinabove are strictly limited to the
adjudication on the issue raised before this Court and do not have any
bearing on the merit of the charge and the learned Trial Court would
11
decide the case as per law without being in any way influenced
thereby.
…........................................J.
[ARUN MISHRA]
…........................................J.
[AMITAVA ROY]
NEW DELHI;
MAY 04, 2017.
