05.04.2013 Views

VIGILANCE MANUAL VOLUME III - AP Online

VIGILANCE MANUAL VOLUME III - AP Online

VIGILANCE MANUAL VOLUME III - AP Online

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

Create successful ePaper yourself

Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.

448 DECISION -191<br />

(1) by producing the original sanction which itself contains the facts<br />

constituting the offence and the grounds of satisfaction or (2) by<br />

adducing evidence aliunde to show that the facts placed before the<br />

sanctioning authority and the satisfaction arrived at by it.<br />

(191)<br />

Public Servant<br />

Chief Minister or Minister is a public servant within<br />

the meaning of section 21 Indzian Penal Code.<br />

M. Karunanidhi vs. Union of India,<br />

AIR 1979 SC 898<br />

The appellant was a former Chief Minister of Tamilnadu. A<br />

criminal case was registered against him and investigated by the<br />

Central Bureau of Investigation and a charge sheet was laid before<br />

the Special Judge for Special Police Establishment Cases under sec.<br />

161 IPC (corresponding to sec.7 of P.C.Act, 1988), secs. 468 and<br />

471 I.P.C. and section 5(2) read with section 5(1)(d) of the Prevention<br />

of Corruption Act, 1947 (corresponding to sec.13(2) read with sec.<br />

13(1)(d) of P.C.Act, 1988) after obtaining sanction of the Governor of<br />

Tamilnadu under section 197 Cr.P.C. The appellant filed an<br />

application before the Special Judge for discharging him on the ground<br />

that the prosecution suffered from various legal and constitutional<br />

infirmities. On the Special Judge rejecting the application, the<br />

appellant filed two applications in the High Court for quashing the<br />

proceedings and setting aside the order of the Special Judge, and<br />

the High Court rejected the applications. He then approached the<br />

Supreme Court.<br />

One of the contentions raised by the appellant before the<br />

Special Judge, the High Court and before the Supreme Court was<br />

that the appellant being the Chief Minister was not a public servant,<br />

that there was no relationship of master and servant between him<br />

and the Government and he was acting as a constitutional functionary

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!