Laloo Yadav case - Sanction to prosecute - Court cannot add to statute : SC
By TIOL News Service
NEW DELHI, DEC 08, 2006 : IN these appeals the basic question raised relates to the validity of sanction to prosecute the appellants for offence punishable under the Prevention of Corruption Act. The appellants plead that:-
• For cognizance of the offence, previous sanction is necessary under the Act if the public servant does not hold the same office which he allegedly abused on the date when the cognizance was taken by the Court.
• even though a public servant does not hold the same office and holds some other office, then also sanction is necessary.
• the effect of the recommendations made by the Law Commission in its 41st report which necessitated sanction in terms of Section 197 of the Code extending the protection of sanction for a retired public servant as well should have been also extended under Section 6(1) of the Prevention of Corruption Act.
• This is a case of causus omissus .( what is causus omissus - please see TIOL-DDT 340 - 12 04 2006)
• The order rejecting the plea of lack of sanction and the jurisdiction is required to be passed by a speaking order.
• The Secretary to the Government had no jurisdiction to sign the sanction order on the instructions of the Governor.
• There is no material to show that the alleged dis-proportionate assets were relatable to a period when Smt. Rabri Devi was the Chief Minister. At that time she was also either holding the office of MLC or MLA and, therefore, the sanction granted has no validity.
The Supreme Court noted that in Lalu Prasad Yadav's case the sanction had been given by the Governor. The prosecution did not obtain the sanction separately so far as the appellant Rabri Devi is concerned as she was only a house wife and not a public servant during the relevant period. In the sanction accorded in respect of the appellant- Lalu Prasad Yadav, it has been expressly mentioned that the acts of Smt. Rabri Devi amounted to aiding and abetting of commission of offence under Section 13(1)(e) by her husband Lalu Prasad Yadav and she was thus liable to be prosecuted for offence punishable under Sections 107 and 109 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860
Regarding causus omissus, the Supreme Court explained the law as :
• Two principles of construction one relating to causus omissus and the other in regard to reading the statute as a whole appear to be well settled.
• Under the first principle a causus omissus cannot be supplied by the Court except in the case of clear necessity and when reason for it is found in the four corners of the statute itself but at the same time a causus omissus should not be readily inferred and for that purpose all the parts of a statute or section must be construed together and every clause of a section should be construed with reference to the context and other clauses thereof so that the construction to be put on a particular provision makes a consistent enactment of the whole statute.
• This would be more so if literal construction of a particular clause leads to manifestly absurd or anomalous results which could not have been intended by the Legislature.
• An intention to produce an unreasonable result is not to be imputed to a statute if there is some other construction available.
• Where to apply words literally would "defeat the obvious intention of the legislature and produce a wholly unreasonable result" we must "do some violence to the words" and so achieve that obvious intention and produce a rational construction.
• A causus omissus ought not to be created by interpretation, save in some case of strong necessity.
• Where, however, a causus omissus does really occur, either through the inadvertence of the legislature, or on the principle quod semel aut bis existit proetereunt legislators , the rule is that the particular case, thus left unprovided for, must be disposed of according to the law as it existed before such statute - Causus omissus et oblivioni datus dispositioni communis juris relinquitur ; "a causus omissus, can in no case be supplied by a court of law, for that would be to make laws.
• The plea that the effect of Law Commission's report and Dr. Bakshi Tekchand report has not been considered by the Legislature and therefore this is a case of "causus omissus" is clearly without any substance.
So the appeals are dismissed.
(See 2006-TIOL-174-SC-MISC in 'Legal Corner')
