Case: Arun Kumar Aggarwal Vs. State Of M.P

The respondent no. 2, Shri. Raghav Chandra, who is a Commissioner of M.P. Housing Board, Bhopal along with respondent no. 3, Shri. Shahjad Khan, posted as the then Collector, Katni, Jabalpur and respondent no. 4, Shri. Ram Meshram, posted as the Land Acquisition Officer, M.P. Housing Board, Bhopal, whilst, discharging their functions, had allegedly entered into conspiracy and made a secret plot with Shri. B.D. Gautam, the Director of Olphert Company and, subsequently, purchased the land belonging to Olphert Company at higher rates for the M.P. Housing Board, thereby, caused a financial loss of over `4 Crores to the Government. The appellant reported this alleged transaction of purchase of land by the M.P. Housing Board, alleging financial loss to the Government, to the Lokayukta, Bhopal. Subsequently, the Special Police Establishment (Lokayukta), Jabalpur (hereinafter referred to asregistered an FIR No. 165 of 2002 against accused respondent nos. 2 to 4, as the alleged act or conduct of the accused respondents, all working as Government Servants, amounts to an offence under Section 13 (1-d) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as) and Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as. Accordingly a Criminal Case No. 165 of 2002 was registered against respondent nos. 2 to 4 in the Court of learned Special Judge. However, the sanction of the Government was necessary as mandated by Section 19 of the PCA in order to prosecute the said accused respondents. Acting upon the complaint of the appellant, the Lokayukta Police, after conducting the investigation, had exonerated respondent nos. 2 to 4 of all the charges leveled against them and submitted final closure report, under Section 169 of the Criminal Procedure Code (hereinafter referred to as), to the learned Special Judge, Katni as no case had been made out to prosecute respondents. Thereafter, the learned Special Judge, Katni after hearing the respondents, appreciating the evidence on record and perusing the case diary, had rejected the closure report vide his Order dated 26.4.2005. The operative portion of the order dated 26.4.2005 passed by the learned Special Judge is extractedIn this way from above record produced, even prima facie, it is evident that the accused had made secrete plot (durabhi sandhi) with Shri B.D. Gautam the Director of Olphert Company with conspiracy and purchased land of Olphert Company on higher rate and caused financial loss over four crores to the Government which there are sufficient grounds for taking cognizance against the accused persons.32. Accused person Shri Raghav Chandra is posted as Commissioner of M.P. Housing Board and Shri Ram Meshram is posted as Land Acquiring Officer in M.P. Housing Board and Shri Shahjaad Khan while remaining posted as Collector, all above accused persons working as Government servant, while discharging their government duties, committed above crime- under section 19 of Anti Corruption Act 1988, it is necessary to obtain sanction to prosecute Government Servant U/S 13 of Anti-Corruption Act. Therefore matter may be taken up seeking necessary sanction to prosecute the accused persons Raghav Chandra, Shri Ram Meshram and Shahjaad Khan to prosecute them under Section 13 (1-d), 13 (2) Anti Corruption Act and under Section 120-B I.P.C. and for necessary further action, case be registered in the criminal case diary.Aggrieved by the above observation, respondent nos. 2 to 4 preferred Criminal Revision Petitions under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. before the High Court. The High Court allowed the revision petitions and quashed the Order dated 26.4.2005 of the learned Special Judge on the ground that the Order of the learned Special Judge is illegal and without jurisdiction, in view of the decision of this Court in Abhinandan Jha v. Dinesh Mishra, AIR 1968 SC 117 , as the Magistrate cannot impinge upon the jurisdiction of the police by directing them to change their opinion when the closure report had been submitted by the police under Section 169 of the Cr.P.C. The reliance is also placed on the observation made by this Court in the case of Mansukh Lal Vithaldas Chauhan v. State of Gujarat AIR 1997 SC 3400 wherein it is observedSince the validity ofdepends on the applicability of mind by the sanctioning authority of the facts of the case as also the material and evidence collected during investigation it necessarily follows that the sanctioning authority has to apply its own independent mind for the generation of genuine satisfaction whether prosecution has to be sanctioned or not. The mind of the sanctioning authority should not be under pressure from any quarter nor should any external force be acting upon it to take a decision one way or the other. Since the discretion to grant or not to grant sanction vests absolutely in the sanctioning authority, its discretion should be shown to have not been affected by any extraneous consideration. It is shown that the sanctioning authority was unable to apply its independent mind for any reason whatsoever or was under an obligation or compulsion or constraint to grant the sanction, the order will be bad for the reason that the discretion of the authoritywas taken away and it was compelled to act mechanically to sanction the prosecution.Being aggrieved, the appellant is before us in this appeal.

Reasoning: 31. In view of above, it is well settled that obiter dictum is a mere observation or remark made by the court by way of aside while deciding the actual issue before it. The mere casual statement or observation which is not relevant, pertinent or essential to decide the issue in hand does not form the part of the judgment of the Court and have no authoritative value. The expression of the personal view or opinion of the Judge is just a casual remark made whilst deviating from answering the actual issues pending before the Court. These casual remarks are considered or treated as beyond the ambit of the authoritative or operative part of the judgment.32. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, we are of the opinion that the refusal of the learned Special Judge, vide its Order dated 26.4.2005, to accept the final closure report submitted by Lokayukta Police is the only ratio decidendi of the Order. The other part of the Order which deals with the initiation of Challan proceedings cannot be treated as the direction issued by the learned Special Judge. The relevant portion of the Order of the learned Special Judge dealing with Challan Proceeding reads asmatter may be taken up seeking necessary sanction to prosecute the accused persons Raghav Chandra, Shri Ram Meshram and Shahjaad Khan to prosecute them under Section 13 (1-d), 13 (2) Anti Corruption Act and under Section 120-B I.P.C and for necessary further action, case be registered in the criminal caseThe wordings of this Order clearly suggest that it is not in the nature of the command or authoritative instruction. This Order is also not specific or clear in order to direct or address any authority or body to perform any act or duty. Therefore, by no stretch of imagination, this Order can be considered or treated as the direction issued by the learned Special Judge. The wholistic reading of this Order leads to only one conclusion, that is, it is in the nature of `Obiter Dictum or mere passing remark made by the learned Special Judge, which only amounts to expression of his personal view. Therefore, this portion of the Order dealing with Challan proceeding, is neither relevant, pertinent nor essential, while deciding the actual issues which were before the learned Special Judge and hence, cannot be treated as the part of the Judgment of the learned Special Judge.33. In the light of the above discussion, we are of the opinion that, the portion of the Order of the learned Special Judge which deals with the Challan proceedings is a mere observation or remark made by way of aside. In view of this, the High Court had grossly erred in considering and treating this mere observation of the learned Special Judge as the direction of the Court. Therefore, there was no occasion for the High Court to interfere with the Order of the learned Special Judge.