State Of Maharashtra vs Devahari Devasingh Pawar & Others

4. It came to light that HIV contaminated blood was supplied to the Government Medical College and Hospital, Nagpur by its blood bank and as a result, some patients who were given blood transfusion had tested HIV positive. After making some preliminary inquiry, the Drugs Inspector, Nagpur lodged a first information report with the police. The police investigation led to further charges of a serious nature coming to light. It is stated on behalf of the appellant that in the course of investigation it was found that entries in the registers maintained at the blood bank were tampered with and corrections were made without any initials to certify those corrections. More seriously some pages were missing from the Donor Register and likewise some pages were torn off from the Issue Register for dates 10.4.1993 to 12.5.1993. Further investigation revealed that the pages from the official registers were torn by Dr. P.P. Sancheti (accused No. 1-respondent No. 7) who carried away those pages with him on his transfer on 2.6.1993. He did not return the torn pages despite a number of letters sent by the departmental authorities. After some effort, the police was able to find out accused No. 1-respondent No. 7 and in course of search of his house the documents, namely; pages from the Issue Register for dates 10.4.1993 to 12.5.1993 and pages from the Donor Register relating to blood units 2478 to 2510 were recovered.

8. On an application made by the Drugs Inspector, the complaint filed by him was amalgamated with the earlier police case and resultantly the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate took cognizance under Sections 269, 201 and 204 read with Section 34 I.P.C. and Sections 18(a)(i) read with Sections 27 and 17-A & C of the Drugs Act and summoned the seven accused to face trial. The trial did not make any progress for sometime and on 31.1.2001, the accused filed a petition for quashing the proceedings as the prosecution had not produced sanction from the State Government. The learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate allowed the petition and by order dated 10.4.2001 quashed the proceedings of the case. Against the order passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, the State preferred Criminal Revision No. 445 of 2001 before the Sessions Judge, Nagpur. The learned Sessions Judge, on hearing the parties, allowed the revision and set-aside the order of the trial court. He directed the trial court to proceed with the trial leaving the question of sanction open to be adjudicated at the time of conclusion of trial. Against the order of the Sessions Court, the respondents moved the Nagpur Bench of the High Court in Criminal Revision Application No. 50 of 2004. The High Court as noted above set aside the order of the Sessions Judge and quashed the proceedings on the ground that the prosecution had not produced the order of sanction from the State Government before the Trial Court. In taking the view that the prosecution could not proceed against the accused for want of Government sanction, the High Court mainly relied upon the decision of this Court in Abdul Wahab Ansari Vs. State of Bihar, 2000(8) SCC 500.

13. In light of the above passage, we fail to see how tampering with the entries made in official registers, tearing of pages from different official registers and stowing them away in one's house can be related to the discharge of official duties. We do not have the slightest doubt that the allegations made against the accused related to acts that had no nexus or connection to the discharge of their official duties and, therefore, their prosecution on those allegations had no need of any sanction under Section 197 of the Code.

15. As shown above, a substantial part of cases against the accused does not require any sanction for their prosecution. The facts of the case do not warrant any piecemeal quashing or discharge of the accused. We, therefore, consider it appropriate and just that the trial of the accused should be allowed to proceed without any hindrance. After the evidence of two the sides are led, the trial court will be in a better position to judge whether or not any offences are made out under the Drugs Act and; whether or not any offences, if are made out, could be said to have been committed by the accused in discharge of their official duties and whether or not any sanction of the State Government was required for their prosecution for those offences and what would be the effect of non-production of sanction by the prosecution. The question of sanction for prosecution under the Drugs Act is thus left open to be decided by the trial court at the end of the trial. In the result, the order of the High Court coming under appeal is set-aside and the matter is remitted to the trial court with the aforesaid directions and observations. In the result, this appeal stands allowed.