CASE BRIEF
Decided On: 24.03.1999
Appellants: T.M. Jacob
Vs.
Respondent: State of Kerala and Ors.
Statues referred
- The constitution of India – Article 194
Facts
- The Petitioner is a member of the Kerala Legislative Assembly. In his capacity as a Minister for Irrigation the Petitioner had participated in the meeting of the subject committee for irrigation constituted by the Legislative Assembly.
- The said committee met on 16th May 1995 and took certain decision in respect of Karappara-Kuriyarkutty Project.
- In1997 a vigilance case was registered against several officers in respect of certain grave irregularities and corruption. The Petitioner was added as the 9th accused. Ext. P-1 is a report submitted by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau, before the Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge.
- Thereafter the Governor of Kerala gave sanction to prosecute the Petitioner. The Petitioner filed the Original Petition to quash all proceedings in the vigilance case pending before the Court of Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge, Kozhikode. The Petitioner has also sought a declaration that the order of sanction granted by the Governor is void, inoperative and unsustainable in law.
- It was mainly contended by the Petitioner that a Minister and a Member of Legislative Assembly is protected under Article 194 of the Constitution of India and therefore, the Petitioner cannot be prosecuted on the basis of a decision taken by a legislative committee.
Issues
- Whether petitioner should have been given an opportunity of being heard before the sanction was granted by the Governor of Kerala
- Whether a prosecution can be interfered with in the initial stage on the ground of mala fide
Contentions
- Appellant’s arguments
- The main anchor of the argument of the petitioner is that a Minister and a Member of Legislative Assembly is protected under Article 194 of the Constitution of India and therefore, the petitioner cannot be prosecuted on the basis of a decision taken by a Legislature Committee. Exhibit P-1 shows that the criminal prosecution against the petitioner is based on his conduct as a Member of Legislature and a Minister who participated in the proceedings of the subject committee.
- No criminal liability can be fastened on the petitioner in respect of anything done by him as a member of the committee as no member of a legislature of a State shall be liable to be prosecuted in any Court in respect of such action.
- The petitioner has also got a case that the prosecution now launched against him is mala fide and politically motivated. The petitioner is relying on ExhibitsP-6 and P-7 press reports where the Chief Minister has alleged to have stated that the petitioner would be prosecuted on the basis of the allegations regarding the Kuriyarkutty Karappara project
- Respondent’s arguments
- Sri M. K. Damodaran, learned Advocate, General argued that the proceedings in the subject committee meeting are not the subject matter of Prosecution. The prosecution was not launched on the basis of the decision in the subject committee. The petitioner is being prosecuted not for taking any decision in the subject committee meeting. Now the charge has been laid against the petitioner along with the other accused.
- The charge relates to various omissions and commissions on the part of the petitioner and abusing his official position as a Minister for Irrigation which helped the contractor to derive pecuniary advantage and causing huge loss to the exchequer.
- The petitioner’s participation is not the foundation of the charge. No prosecution has now been launched against the petitioner on the basis of his participation in the subject committee.
- As explained by the learned Advocate General the charge is under the Prevention of Corruption Act and various Sections of Indian Penal Code that the petitioner abused his official position and is guilty of corruption thus, allowing the contractor to derive pecuniary advantage which resulted in huge loss to the Government.
High Court judgement
- The court did not think that the petitioner was justified in seeking the relief of quashing the criminal proceedings now taken against him. Therefore, the Original Petition was dismissed
- The mere fact that the complainant was guilty of mala fides would be no ground for quashing the prosecution. Mala fide intention of the person cannot be a reason for preventing the Court from proceeding with a complaint and to decide the same on the basis of the evidence adduced before the Court.
- Before granting sanction the authority or the appropriate Government is not bound to give an opportunity of being heard to the delinquent/accused. The reasoning behind this line of thinking is that the accused is getting a full opportunity to prove his innocence during the trial and a pre-trial opportunity is not contemplated.
Supreme Court order issued on 02.05.2000
D.P. Wadhwa and Ruma Pal held that even though the High Court has remitted the question of applicability of Article 194 of the Constitution of India to the trial court, yet at the same time the High Court has said that “On looking into the charge sheet, we are of the view that it is not hit by Article 194 of the Constitution of India.”
The honourable judges observed that this observation would certainly come in the way of the trial court in applying its independent mind on the question of the applicability of Article 194 of the Constitution of India. They, therefore, directed that the trial court will consider the question of the applicability of Article 194 of the Constitution uninfluenced by any observation made by the High Court in the impugned judgment.
Conclusion
This case looks into the scope of Article 194. It was also stated that mala fide intention of the person cannot be a reason for preventing the Court from proceeding with a complaint and to decide the same on the basis of the evidence adduced before the Court.