NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court has held that investigation into a complaint of corruption against a public servant could not be shut on the threshold merely because an Opposition party or leader levelled the allegations.

Disposing of a batch of appeals relating to sanction of prosecution, a Bench consisting of Justices Arijit Pasayat and S.H. Kapadia said: "A plea of mala fides has not only to be clearly pleaded but specifically proved by adducing cogent evidence. Mere allegation and suspicions would not be sufficient. Insofar as the allegation that a political opponent lodged the complaint [under Section 154 Cr.PC] is concerned, that itself is not sufficient for the court to interfere. When the allegation is made, an investigation is undertaken to find out whether there is any substance in the allegation. Merely because the political opponent is the complainant does not per se lead to an inference that the complainant has to be thrown out or that no notice should be taken thereof."

The Bench said: "The ultimate test is whether the allegations have any substance. An investigation should not be shut out on the threshold because a political opponent or a person with political differences raises an allegation of commission of offence."

The question relating to the need for sanction under Section 197 Cr.PC was not necessarily to be considered as soon as the complaint was lodged and on the allegations contained therein. The question whether sanction was necessary or not might arise at any stage of the proceedings and must be determined from stage to stage.

On the former Punjab Chief Minister Parkash Singh Badal's contention that in his case the sanctioning authority had not applied his mind while granting sanction, the Bench said: "The sanctioning authority is not required to separately specify each of the offences against the accused public servant. This is required to be done at the stage of framing of charge. Whether there is an application of mind or not would depend on the facts and circumstances of each case and there cannot be any generalised guidelines in that regard." It dismissed the appeals filed by him, his son and others.

Regarding the cases against Railway Minister Lalu Prasad and his wife and former Bihar Chief Minister Rabri Devi, the Bench said the question of jurisdiction of authority to grant sanction and other issues raised by them were required to be considered and adjudicated by the trial court. It dismissed their appeals also.

As for the former Kerala Chief Minister, K. Karunakaran, the Bench referred to an affidavit filed by Chief Secretary on November 24, 2005, seeking permission to withdraw the prosecution against him. The Bench said: "But interestingly, subsequently, another affidavit has been filed stating that there is no intention to withdraw the prosecution."

Printer friendly page  
Send this article to Friends by E-Mail