Yeshwant Kumar Mehta Vs. State of M.P.

Yeshwant Kumar Mehta vs State of M.P.

Disposition Revision dismissed Court Madhya Pradesh Decided Sep 25, 2002

~5 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/508478

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/508478
Court: Madhya Pradesh High Court
Judge: S.L. Kochar, J.
Decided On: Sep 25, 2002
Case Number: Criminal Revision No. 588/2002
Subject: Criminal
Disposition: Revision dismissed

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

- MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988 [C.A. No. 59/1988]Section 147; [A.K. Patnaik, CJ, S.S. Jha & A.M. Sapre, JJ] Liability of Insurer - Third party insurance Held, The insured who is a party to the insurance is not a third party for the purpose of Chapter XI of the Act, particularly Section 147 thereof. Thus, any person ot...

Key legal issue: Criminal
Outcome / disposition: Revision dismissed
Acts & sections: Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1974 - Sections 300; Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - Sections 7, 13(1) and 13(2)

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Yeshwant Kumar Mehta

Advocate H.S. Oberoi, Sr. Adv. and ;P. Prasad, Addv.

Respondent

State of M.P.

Advocate Upadyaya, Dy. Govt. Adv.

Legal References

Acts: Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1974 - Sections 300; Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - Sections 7, 13(1) and 13(2)
Cases Referred: and N.R. Ghose v. State of West Bengal
Reported In: 2002(4)MPHT377

Excerpt

.....be liable for any bodily injury or death of a third party in an accident unless the liability is fastened on the insurer under the provisions of section 147 of the act or under the terms and conditions of the policy of insurance. hence, the mere fact that a passenger is a third party would not fasten liability on the insurer unless such liability arises under section 147 of the act or under the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. an employee is a third party inasmuch as he is not a party to the insurance policy. but merely because an employee is a third party, the insurance company would not be liable to compensate in case such employee suffers bodily injury or dies in an accident in which the motor vehicle is involved unless section 147 of the act fixes such liability on the insured or unless the terms and conditions of the contract of insurance fixes liability on the insurer. section 147 (1)(b) of the act provides that in order to comply with the requirements of chapter xi of the act, a policy of insurance must be a policy which insures the person or classes of persons specified in the policy to the extent specified in sub-section (2) against the liabilities mentioned in clauses (i) and (ii) thereunder. even if an employee is a passenger or a person travelling in a motor vehicle which is insured as per the requirements of sub-section (1) of section 147 of the act, the insurer will not be liable to cover any liability in respect of death or bodily injury of such employee unless such employee falls in one of the categories mentioned in sub-clauses (a), (b) and (c)of clause (i) of the proviso to sub-section (1)of section 147 of the act and further in cases where such employees fall under categories mentioned in sub-clauses (a), (b) and (c) of clause (i) of the proviso to sub-section (1`) of section 147 of the act, the insurer is liable only for the liability under the workmens compensation act, 1923. [national insurance co. ltd. v sarvanlal, 2004 (4)..........the order of framing of charge under sections 13(1)(d) and 13(1)(2) of the prevention of corruption act and directing trial passed in special case no. 2/2002 by the learned special judge, mandsaur on 12-8-2002 and 27-6-2002 respectively.2. brief facts required to be mentioned for disposal of this revision are that the non-applicant/state filed a charge-sheet against the applicant for commission of offence punishable under sections 7 and 13(2) of the prevention of corruption act. it was alleged against the applicant that he being a junior engineer as public servant in m.p. electricity board, centre afzalpur, accepted illegal gratification of rs. 1,800/- for granting electric connection to the complainant. the applicant was tried by the first addl. district & sessions judge, mandsaur in sessions trial no. 1/2000.3. the learned trial court vide its judgment dated 10-10-2000 acquitted the applicant on the ground that alongwith the charge-sheet, the legal sanction, as required by law to prosecute the applicant, was not filed. the learned trial court has held in para 20 of the judgment that the cognizance could have not been taken because, there was no legal, proper and valid sanction and on the basis of invalid sanction the applicant could not be convicted. since the sanction was held improper, the prosecution after obtaining valid and proper sanction from the sanctioning authority, again filed the charge-sheet against the applicant. on the basis of this, by the impugned order, charges have been framed by the court below.4. i have heard shri h.s. oberoi, learned counsel assisted by shri p. prasad for the applicant and shri mayank upadhyaya, learned deputy govt. advocate appearing for the state.5. the contention of the learned counsel for the applicant is that as per provision of section 300 of the cr.pc, the applicant, once tried and acquitted, cannot be tried again. therefore, filing of the charge-sheet and framing of charge is wholly illegal and without.....

Full Judgment

ORDER

S.L. Kochar, J.

1. This revision is filed by the applicant against the order of framing of charge under Sections 13(1)(d) and 13(1)(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and directing trial passed in Special Case No. 2/2002 by the learned Special Judge, Mandsaur on 12-8-2002 and 27-6-2002 respectively.

2. Brief facts required to be mentioned for disposal of this revision are that the non-applicant/State filed a charge-sheet against the applicant for commission of offence punishable under Sections 7 and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. It was alleged against the applicant that he being a Junior Engineer as Public Servant in M.P. Electricity Board, Centre Afzalpur, accepted illegal gratification of Rs. 1,800/- for granting electric connection to the complainant. The applicant was tried by the First Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Mandsaur in Sessions Trial No. 1/2000.

3. The learned Trial Court vide its judgment dated 10-10-2000 acquitted the applicant on the ground that alongwith the charge-sheet, the legal sanction, as required by law to prosecute the applicant, was not filed. The learned Trial Court has held in para 20 of the judgment that the cognizance could have not been taken because, there was no legal, proper and valid sanction and on the basis of invalid sanction the applicant could not be convicted. Since the sanction was held improper, the prosecution after obtaining valid and proper sanction from the sanctioning authority, again filed the charge-sheet against the applicant. On the basis of this, by the impugned order, charges have been framed by the Court below.

4. I have heard Shri H.S. Oberoi, learned Counsel assisted by Shri P. Prasad for the applicant and Shri Mayank Upadhyaya, learned Deputy Govt. Advocate appearing for the State.

5. The contention of the learned Counsel for the applicant is that as per provision of Section 300 of the Cr.PC, the applicant, once tried and acquitted, cannot be tried again. Therefore, filing of the charge-sheet and framing of charge is wholly illegal and without jurisdiction. He relied on a judgment passed by Karnataka High Court in Subbe Gowda and Ors. v. I.S. Saldana [1996 (4) Crimes 228], and the judgment rendered by Punjab High Court in State v. Kuldeepsingh (AIR 1960 Punjab 149).

6. On the other hand, the submission of the learned Dy. Govt. Advocate, Shri Upadhyaya is that since the acquittal was not recorded by the Court of competent jurisdiction, therefore, the provisions under Section 300, Cr.PC will not come to rescue the applicant from the present prosecution which has been launched after taking valid sanction from the competent authority. In support of this, he placed reliance on a judgment of the Supreme Court passed in Baijnathprasad Tripathi v. State of Bhopal (AIR 1957 SC 494), Nagraj v. State of Mysore (AIR 1964 SC 269) and N.R. Ghose v. State of West Bengal (AIR I960 SC 239).

7. Having heard learned Counsel for the parties and having perused the record, this Court is of the opinion that in the present case, the applicant was not acquitted by the Court of competent jurisdiction as per provision under Section 300(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, because in Special Case No. 1/2000 the judgment dated 10-10-2000 was passed by the First Addl. Sessions Judge, Mandsaur, the acquittal was recorded on the ground of illegal sanction. The learned Trial Court in para 20 has held that on the basis of invalid sanction, the Court could not take cognizance, and therefore, it had no power to convict the applicant. Therefore, the learned Trial Court acquitted the applicant giving positive finding that, that Court was not competent and having jurisdiction for trying the applicant.

8. The Supreme Court in the cases of Baijnathprasad Tripathi, Nagraj and N.R. Ghose (supra) has specifically held that the bar of Section 300 (In old Cr.PC equivalent Section 403) is no bar to subsequent trial. In the case of Baijnathprasad Tripathi, the Supreme Court held as under :--

'The whole basis of Section 403(1) is that the first trial should have been before a Court of competent to hear and determine the case and to record a verdict of conviction or acquittal, if the Court is not so competent, as where the required sanction under Section 6, Prevention of Corruption Act for the prosecution was not obtained, the whole trial is null and void and it cannot be said thatthere was any conviction or acquittal in force within the meaningof Section 403(1), Cr.PC such a trial does not bar a subsequenttrial of the accused under Prevention of Corruption Act read withSection 161, IPC after obtaining the proper sanction.'*** *** *** *** ***

9. Similar view has been taken in the abovementioned subsequent Supreme Court judgments.

10. In the judgment passed by the Punjab High Court as well as the Karnataka High Court, this legal question was not involved that whether the acquittal of the accused was recorded by a Court of competent jurisdiction or not. Therefore, the same has no relevance in the facts and circumstances of the present case and both these decisions are distinguishable.

11. Consequently, this revision fails and is hereby dismissed.

Same Court & Year Madhya Pradesh · 2002 Same Parties Yeshwant Kumar Mehta vs State of M.P. Same Subject Criminal Same Judge S.L. Kochar, J. Acts & Sections Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1974 - Sections 300; Prev...

Criminal