REPORTABLE

                  IN THE SUPREME COURT OF  INDIA            CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION   

    CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 498  OF 2006

LOUIS PETER SURIN ..  APPELLANT(S)

vs.

STATE OF JHARKHAND ..  RESPONDENT(S)

O  R D E R

This appeal arises out of the following facts:

On 8th July, 1983 an agreement was executed by the  

Deputy Commissioner,  Palamu with M/s. Bharat Drilling for  

doing some drilling work in the District.  The appellant  

was then employed as the Managing Director of the District  

Rural Development Agency, Palamu, and as per his statement  

had absolutely no role to play in the award of the contract

to M/s. Bharat Drilling. By order dated 16th July, 1983 the  

appellant  was  transferred  from  his  post  as  Managing  

Director and he handed over the charge  from that very date  

to some other officer.   

A first Information Report was registered on 14th  

April, 1984 under the Prevention of Corruption Act and  the  

Indian Penal Code against the Deputy Commissioner who had  

signed the contract with M/s. Bharat Drilling on 8th July  

1983  and  against  the  District  Rural  Development  Agency  

alleging that the Deputy Commissioner and the appellant had  

entered   into   a    conspiracy    in   awarding   the  

-2-

contract  to  M/s.  Bharat  Drilling  for  consideration.  The  

Investigating  Agencies  moved  the  State  of  Bihar  for

sanction  to  prosecute  the  appellant  but  the  same  was  

declined  by  the  Governor  on  2nd February,  1990  on  the  

premise that no prima facie  case was made out against any  

of the accused.  A review of the order dated 2nd February  

1990 was  again sought  which too was  rejected vide order  

dated 28th July 1992 for the same reason,  the appellant  

superannuated from service on  1st December 1997. On 16th  

June, 1999 the dispute between M/s. Bharat Drilling and the  

Government of Bihar was referred to Arbitration to the then  

Superintendent Engineer who made an  award in favour of  

M/s.  Bharat  Drilling  thereby  settling  the  issue  in  its  

favour. Apparently piqued with what had happened and taking  

advantage of the fact that the appellant had retired in the  

meanwhile and that sanction for prosecution ws no longer  

required, a charge-sheet was submitted de hors the sanction  

on 9th November 2001. The  Special Judge Ranchi thereafter

took cognizance of the matter on 13th December, 2001.  The  

order of the Special Judge was challenged  before the High  

Court which by its order dated 23rd November, 2004 rejected  

the challenge. The matter is before us in this appeal in  

the above circumstances.

Mr. Vikas Singh, the learned senior counsel for the  

appellant has raised primarily one plea before us today.  

He has pointed out that cognizance had been taken by the  

-3-

Special Judge a full seventeen and half years after the  

filing of the FIR and about four years after the appellant  

had retired from service and in the light of the judgments  

of this Court reported in (2002) 1 SCC 149 (Mahendra Lal

Dua vs. State of Bihar and Ors.) and (2002) 1 SCC 153  

(Ramanand Chaudhary vs. State of Bihar and Ors.) this was  

impermissible and the proceedings were liable to be quashed  

as being belated and stale. He has highlighted that after  

the State Government, had on two occasions, declined the  

sanction, on the ground that no prima facie case existed,  

there  was  no  change  in   circumstances  except  that  the  

appellant had superannuated in the meanwhile which was a  

factor which could not justify  cognizance after such a  

long delay.

The learned counsel for the State of Jharkahnd has  

however supported the orders of the Special Judge and the  

High Court and has pointed out that the State Government  

had not considered the matter in its proper perspective,  

when it had declined sanction on the two occasions.

We see from the judgments cited by Mr. Vikas Singh

that they proceed on facts which are akin to the present  

one. In both cases sanction was granted after a delay of  

thirteen years while  the officials concerned were still in  

service under the State Government.  We find in the matter  

before us that the appellant had superannuated in the year  

1997 and the cognizance had been taken by the Special  

-4-

Judge  four years thereafter in a matter arising out of an  

F.I.R. registered in April 1984 even though the request for  

sanction had been rejected by the State Government on two  

occasions. In view of these peculiar facts we are of the  

opinion  that  the  initiation  of  proceedings  against  the

appellant was not justified.   

We may however clarify that this judgment should not  

be read to mean that sanction would be required in a case  

where an employee has in the meanwhile superannuated.

We  accordingly  allow  this  appeal,  set  aside  the  

impugned  orders  and  quash  the  proceedings  against  the  

appellant.

        (HARJIT SINGH BEDI)

.................J.                                      (C.K. PRASAD) New Delhi,

    July 27, 2010.