NDLI: A. Srinivasulu Vs. The State Rep. By The Inspector of Police

Content Provider	Supreme Court of India
e-ISSN	30484839
Language	English
Access Restriction	NDLI
Subject Keyword	193 420 Penal Code 1860: ss.120B 468 and 471 – Criminal conspiracy and cheating
Content Type	Text
Resource Type	Law Judgement
Jurisdiction	India
Act(s) Referred	Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (49 of 1988) Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974)
Case(s) Referred	Referred Case 0 Referred Case 1 Referred Case 2 Referred Case 3 Referred Case 4 Referred Case 5 Referred Case 6 Referred Case 7 Referred Case 8 Referred Case 9 Referred Case 10 Referred Case 11 Referred Case 12 Referred Case 13 Referred Case 14 Referred Case 15 Referred Case 16 Referred Case 17
Case Type	Appeal
Court	Supreme Court of India
Disposal Nature	Appeal Allowed
Headnote	Penal Code, 1860: ss.120B, 193, 420, 468 and 471 – Criminalconspiracy and cheating – Prosecution case that the appellant,officials of PSU and other private persons entered into a criminalconspiracy to cheat the PSU in the matter of award of contract –Contract granted to one company after resorting to limited/restrictedtenders causing wrongful loss to the PSU – Illegalities alleged inthe procedure followed for inviting the tender – FIR lodged u/s.120B r/w ss. 193, 420, 468, 471 r/w ss. 13 (2) and 13(1)(d) of PCAct – Final report against accused persons including the publicservants-officers of PSU – Two accused died during trial – Specialjudge acquitted one but convicted four – Upheld by the High Court– On appeal, held: Culpability of the appellants for offences underthe IPC and the PC Act not established and proved – Thus, thejudgment of the Special Court convicting the appellants for variousoffences and judgment of the High Court confirming the same setaside – Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 – s.13.Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973:s. 197(1) – Prosecution of public servant – Previous sanction– Requirement of – Executive director of PSU with a view to conferan unfair and under advantage, went for restricted tender bydictating the names of four bogus companies along with the nameof the one chosen to whom the contract was awarded – Allegationsthat he got into a criminal conspiracy with others to commit offences– He retired five years before filing of the final report – Previoussanction u/s. 197 not sought for prosecuting the executive director– Correctness of – Held: Prosecution ought to have taken previoussanction in terms of s. 197(1) for prosecuting the executive directorfor the offences under the IPC – Sanction is required not only foracts done in the discharge of official duty but also required for anyact purported to be done in the discharge of official duty and/or act done under colour of or in excess of such duty or authority – Ifthe very same act of the co-conspirators fell in the realm ofcommercial wisdom, it is impossible that the act of executive director,as part of the criminal conspiracy, fell outside the discharge of hispublic duty, so as to disentitle him for protection u/s.197(1) – Hisact, even if alleged to be lacking in bona fides or in pursuance of aconspiracy, would be an act in the discharge of his official duty,making the case come within the parameters of s. 197(1).ss. 306, 307 – Tender of pardon to approver – Procedureprescribed by s. 306(4)(a) – Compliance of – On facts, the additionalChief Judicial Magistrate granted pardon at the stage ofinvestigation and the prosecution examined him before the SpecialCourt – Plea that the approver, in cases covered by s.306(1), shouldbe examined twice, once as court witness before committal and thenas prosecution witness at the time of trial – Held: When the SpecialCourt chooses to take cognizance, the question of the approverbeing examined as a witness in the court of the Magistrate asrequired by s. 306 (4)(a) does not arise – Object of examining anapprover twice, is to ensure that the accused is made aware of theevidence against him even at the preliminary stage, so as to enablehim to effectively cross examine the approver during trial, bringout contradictions and show him to be untrustworthy – On facts,the object stood fulfilled – Magistrate who recorded the confessionexamined him and the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate whogranted pardon also examined – Thus, no violation of the procedureprescribed by s. 306(4)(a) – Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 –s.5.
Judge	Hon'ble Mr. Justice V. Ramasubramanian
Neutral Citation	2023 INSC 971
Petitioner	A. Srinivasulu
Respondent	The State Rep. By The Inspector Of Police
SCR	[2023] 10 S.C.R. 11
Judgement Date	2023-06-15
Case Number	2417

Sl.	Authority	Responsibilities	Communication Details
1	Ministry of Education (GoI), Department of Higher Education	Sanctioning Authority	https://www.education.gov.in/ict-initiatives
2	Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur	Host Institute of the Project: The host institute of the project is responsible for providing infrastructure support and hosting the project	https://www.iitkgp.ac.in
3	National Digital Library of India Office, Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur	The administrative and infrastructural headquarters of the project	Dr. B. Sutradhar bsutra@ndl.gov.in
4	Project PI / Joint PI	Principal Investigator and Joint Principal Investigators of the project	Dr. B. Sutradhar bsutra@ndl.gov.in Prof. Saswat Chakrabarti will be added soon
5	Website/Portal (Helpdesk)	Queries regarding NDLI and its services	support@ndl.gov.in
6	Contents and Copyright Issues	Queries related to content curation and copyright issues	content@ndl.gov.in
7	National Digital Library of India Club (NDLI Club)	Queries related to NDLI Club formation, support, user awareness program, seminar/symposium, collaboration, social media, promotion, and outreach	clubsupport@ndl.gov.in
8	Digital Preservation Centre (DPC)	Assistance with digitizing and archiving copyright-free printed books	dpc@ndl.gov.in
9	IDR Setup or Support	Queries related to establishment and support of Institutional Digital Repository (IDR) and IDR workshops	idr@ndl.gov.in

A. Srinivasulu Vs. The State Rep. By The Inspector of Police

Please Log-in to view this content

Teesta Atul Setalvad Vs. State of Gujarat

Centrum Financial Services Limited Vs. State of Nct of Delhi and Anr.

Mariappan Vs. State Rep. By Inspector of Police

Elavarasan Vs. State Rep. By Inspector of Police

V.p. Shrivastava Vs. Indian Explosives Ltd. & Ors.

M. Natarajan Vs. State By Inspector of Police, Spe, Cbi, Acb Chennai

Selvam Vs. The State of Tamil Nadu Rep. By Inspector of Police

Arumugam Vs. State Rep. By Inspector of Police, Tamil Nadu

State Rep. By Inspector of Police, Tamil Nadu Vs. Rajendran & Ors.

A. Srinivasulu Vs. The State Rep. By The Inspector of Police

A. Srinivasulu Vs. The State Rep. By The Inspector of Police

Please Log-in to view this content

Similar Documents

Teesta Atul Setalvad Vs. State of Gujarat

Centrum Financial Services Limited Vs. State of Nct of Delhi and Anr.

Mariappan Vs. State Rep. By Inspector of Police

Elavarasan Vs. State Rep. By Inspector of Police

V.p. Shrivastava Vs. Indian Explosives Ltd. & Ors.

M. Natarajan Vs. State By Inspector of Police, Spe, Cbi, Acb Chennai

Selvam Vs. The State of Tamil Nadu Rep. By Inspector of Police

Arumugam Vs. State Rep. By Inspector of Police, Tamil Nadu

State Rep. By Inspector of Police, Tamil Nadu Vs. Rajendran & Ors.

A. Srinivasulu Vs. The State Rep. By The Inspector of Police