Seek opinion on a case
Seek opinion on a case
Court Judgments
Central Laws
State Laws
Regulatory Announcements
Anonymous User


Sign up
Can I be Discharged Under Section 245 Cr.P.C in the following case?
fdf2007in at 10:34 p.m. on 06 Feb. 09
Cr.M.P. No.		of 2008
C.C. No.	1204	OF 2004


1.	Anil Kumar Singh
12-D, Surya Enclave
Secunderabad - 15						Petitioner/Accused

1.	Secunderabad Cantonment Board
	Represented by it Representative
	Dr.T.Arockianathan IDES
	Chief Executive Officer
2.	Dr.T.Arockianathan IDES
	Chief Executive Officer
	Secunderabad Cantonment Board		Respondents/Complainants 


	The Petitioner herein is the Accused in the main case in Criminal Case No.1204 of 2004, and the stage of the case as of this day is that it has been posted for recording of the Evidence of Dr.T.Arockianathan IDES. Joint Director, Defence Estates, Shillong, State of Assam, as per the Directions of the Honorable High Court Orders dated the 8th of February 2008 in Criminal Petition No.4486 of 2007.

	The Petitioner/Accused herein humbly submits that, the Respondents/Complainants had filed a Defamation Case under Section 500, 506 against the Petitioner/Accused in the year 2004 and the same was taken on File and titled as Criminal Case No.1204 of 2004.

	The Petitioner/Accused humbly submits that at the time of filing of the private complaint by the above Respondents/Complainants, the Complainant No.2 Dr.T.Arockianathan was then working as the Chief Executive Office of the Secunderabad Cantonment Board and was also holding additional Charge as the Defence Estates Officer, AP Circle under the Ministry of Defence, Government of India, in the Office of the Directorate General Defence Estates, New Delhi, and was a Government Servant.

	The Petitioner/Accused humbly submits to this Honorable Court, that Dr.T.Arockianathan IDES, Joint Director, Defence Estates, Shillong, State of Assam, while posted here as the CEO-Secunderabad Cantonment Board, and the DEO AP Circle filed the above Private Complaint, while working as a Government Servant and his actions and duties were governed by the Central Civil Services Rules 1964.
	The Petitioner/Accused, humbly submits to bring to the attention of this Honorable Court and your Honor, the following:
Rule 19 of CCS Rules 1964 “ Vindication of acts and character of Government servant”
	19. Vindication of acts and character of Government servant
(1) No Government servant shall, except with the previous sanction of the Government, have recourse to any Court or to the Press for the vindication of any official act which has been the subject-matter of adverse criticism or an attack of a defamatory character.

Provided that if no such sanction is received by the Government servant within a period of three months from the date of receipt of his request by the Government, he shall be free to assume that the permission as sought for has been granted to him.

(2) Nothing in this rule shall be deemed to prohibit a Government servant from vindicating his private character or any act done by him in his private capacity and where any action for vindicating his private character or any act done by him in private capacity is taken, the Government servant shall submit a report to the prescribed authority regarding such action.

Government of India Decisions

 (3) Allegations made in the Press or by individuals against a Government servant in respect of his official conduct – procedure for dealing with.

The First Five Year Plan contained a suggestion that when specific allegations were made in the Press against individual public officers, they should be asked to clear their names in court. This was accompanied by a recommendation that the legal expenses in such cases should be sanctioned by Government on the understanding that if the officer lost his case, he would have to reimburse to Government and if damages were awarded to him, the cost of legal proceedings would be the first charge on them. The suggestions have been carefully considered and the following conclusions have been reached.

2. When allegations are made in the Press or by individuals against a Government servant in respect of his conduct in the discharge of his public functions, a preliminary confidential enquiry by a senior officer should be ordered by Government.
3. If such an enquiry leads to the conclusion that the allegations are based on ignorance, insufficient information or even malice, it should be further considered whether, having regard to the nature and circumstances of the case, any action in a Court of Law is necessary to vindicate the conduct of the Government servant, for in some cases, mere publication of the results of the enquiry may not always carry conviction with the public. If it is decided to have resort to a Court of Law, it should also be considered whether Government should themselves initiate proceedings in a Court of Law against the party which made the allegations or whether the Government servant should be required to initiate such proceedings. If, on the other hand, it is considered as a result of enquiry that there are reasonable grounds to doubt the propriety and correctness of the conduct of the Government servant, or if the enquiry is not conclusive, Government may entrust the case to the Special Police Establishment for investigation or order a full departmental enquiry under the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, or require the Officer to vindicate his conduct by resorting to a Court of Law.

4. In cases where Government decide to initiate criminal proceeding themselves, the provision of Section 198B of the Criminal Procedure Code should be made use of. According to these provisions the complaint can be filed within six months of the date of the alleged offence, by the Public Prosecutor directly in a Court of Sessions with the previous sanction of the Government and the case will thereafter be pursued by Government. Where the Government decided to institute civil proceedings, the usual procedure for institution of civil proceedings by Government may be followed.

5. In cases where the Government servant is required to vindicate his conduct in a Court of Law Government will give financial assistance as laid down in sub-paragraph 2 (d) of MHA OM No. F45/5/53-Ests.(A), dated the 8th January, 1959 (Decision No. 4 below).

6. When a Government servant desires to institute proceedings suo moto to vindicate the conduct in the course of the discharge of his official duties, he will have to obtain the previous sanction of the Government as required in Rule 16 of the Central Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1955 (Now Rule 19).

If Government decide to grant such sanction, no question of reimbursement of any expenses to the Government servant will arise, but advances may be granted as laid down in sub-paragraph (c) (ii) of paragraph 2 of Ministry of Home Affairs OM No. F45/5/53-Ests.(A), dated the 8th January, 1959 (Decision No. 4 below).

7. The appropriate authority for taking a decision in each case will be the administrative Ministry of the Government of India concerned who will consult the Finance and Law Ministries, where necessary. The Comptroller and Auditor General of India will exercise the powers of an administrative Ministry in respect of the Indian Audit and Accounts Department.
	Clarifications regarding Rule 19(1):-The Staff side of the National council (JCM) had recently suggested that the provisions contained in Rule 19(1) of the Central Civil Services (Conduct) Rules 196, should be amended suitably to allow Unions of Associations of Government Employees whose activities are maligned in the Press to Vindicate themselves, without obtaining the previous sanction of the Government.
	The matter was discussed in the meeting of the Committee of the National Council setup to consider the suggestion of the Staff Side for amending the Conduct Rules. While the suggestion that the rule should be so amended that individual employees are enabled to go to the Press to vindicate their position without the prior permission was not favored, it was decided to issue further instructions to provide that Government should take significant or positive steps in the circumstances where the adverse criticism of Government employees in public was found to be based on wrong premises.
	As the Ministry of Finance etc,. are aware, instructions regarding action to be taken in the event of allegations against Government Servants in the Press are contained in Decisions (1) above. Attention is particularly invited to Para 3. of this Office Memorandum. It is considered that the provisions contained therein should be invoked where it is found on an enquiry that the allegations in the Press against individual Government Servant are based on ignorance, in sufficient or even malice”.

	The Petitioner/Accused humbly submits that the Respondent/Complainant No.2. Dr. T.Arockianathan IDES, now Joint Director, Defence Estates, Shillong, State of Assam, while working as the CEO-Secunderabad Cantonment Board and Defence Estates Officer, AP Circle, being a Government Servant in the Ministry of Defence, Office of The Directorate General Defence Estates, failed to seek prior sanction from the Government as required by Rule 19 of Central Civil Service Rules 1964, and thus has not obtained prior sanction from the Government of India, or his Ministry or the Directorate.

	The Petitioner/Accused humbly submits that I have made several representations in the year 2008 and till date to the Directorate General Defence Estates, to be extended a copy of the representation made by Dr.T.Arockianathan IDES, seeking permission/Sanction under Rule 19 of the CCS Rules 1964, unfortunately my representations were never replied to or my requests seeking information under R.T.I Act of 2005 ever met, excepting that my letters were redirected to the Present CEO, Secunderabad Cantonment Board and I was directed to meet him to get the same. Till the filing of this petition I have not been able to get a reply to my representation wherein I had asked for the copies of the representations made to the Ministry/Directorate or any authority by Dr.T.Arockianathan IDES, seeking sanctions under Rule 19 of the CCS Rules 1964. (My representation and the replies from the Directorate may please be marked as Documents No.1 and No.2

	The Petitioner/Accused humbly submits to this Honorable court, with regards to the stage of filing of this Discharge, and the grounds taken for filing of such a Discharge petition are:
	(1).	Prior Sanction not taken by the Government Servant as per the requirements of his service rules.
	(2)	With regards to the Stage, I humbly rely on the following judgments quoted under Section 227 of Cr.P.C.
	(a) Discharge of Accused:- Stage of  - The question at the stage of proceedings under section 227 before the Trial Court would be to address itself to find whether there is sufficient ground for proceeding to the next stage against the accused. If the accused could produce any reliable material even at that stage which might totally affect even the very sustainability of the case, a refusal to even look into the material so produced may result in injustice, apart from averting an exercise in futility at the expense of valuable judicial/public time, it is trite law that the standard of proof normally adhered to at the final stage in not to be insisted upon at the stage where the consideration is to be confined to find out a prima facie case and decide whether it is necessary to proceed to the next stage of framing the charges and making the accused to stand trial for the same. A roving enquiry cannot be undertakern into the pros and cons of the case at that stage by weighing the evidence or collecting materials as if during the course of trial. Om Prakash Sharma vs. Central Bureau of Investigation Delhi: 2000(3)Supreme 745=2000(3) ALT 8.2(DN SC) = AIR 2000 SC 1136 = (2000) 5 SCC 679.
Discharge:- If there is no prospect of the case ending in conviction the valuable time of the Court should not be wasted for holding a trial for the purpose of formality – Accused can be discharged. M. Rajavalse vs. State:1999 (1) ALT (Crl) 328(Karrn)= 1998(6) Karn.L.J.730.

Discharge:- Discharge cab be asked for at any stage of Trial 1987 Cr.L.J.584

Relief prayed for:
	Therefore it is humbly prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to discharge the Petitioner/Accused from the Charges framed against him on the complaint filed by the Respondent/Complainant No.2, Dr. T. Arockianathan IDES, Joint Director Defence Estates, Shillong, State of Assam,  to meet the ends of Justice and pass such other Order or Orders as are deemed fit, Just and Proper under the circumstances of the case.

Be pleased to consider.	

Date: 4th February 2009						Petitioner/Accused
Secunderabad							Party in Person	


what are the charges?
sushant at 1:42 a.m. on 08 Feb. 09
I cannot understand what charges are leveled against the petitioner. And why do you think there is no evidence for the charges against you.

Here is the Section 245 of Criminal Procedure Code.

Can I be Discharged under section 24 of Cr.P.C in the following case?
Anonymous User at 1:18 p.m. on 23 Feb. 09
Dear Sushant,

Thank you for your reply, and you have asked a question as to what are the charges.
Well the charges are punishment u/s 500 of IPC

I would like to know over here, for a person to file a case he has to have locus standi, or the person has to be a greieved party. Correct.

Here the petitioner is no doubt a greieved party, but because he being a Government Servant whose actions are governed by the Central Civil Services (conduct)Rules 1964, in the instant case which has been filed by him in the Criminal Court for seeking justice and punishment under Section 500 IPC, the CCS Conduct Rules (rule 19(1)) clearly and precisely states that it is prerequiste for a Government Servant to obtain the prior sanction from his employers if he wishes to vindicate his character in a court of law.
Here the Government Servant, did not act according to the ruless of his service.
So, do you think he has a locus standi, which is the first step in any case, that is to prove that he has a right to file a case as he are the greieved party. But here again the absence of the prior sanction from his employer under section 19(1) of CCS Conduct Rules not being available, he can not state that he is the greieved party, as the authentication can only be done by the prior sanction from his employer permitting him to file a case in a court of law to vindicat his character.

My main contention is that in this case, there is the question of Locus standi, and if it is established then the court can proeceed further and frame charges. But if in case the complainant is unable to prove his locus standi, how can the court proceed and frame charges.

Will appreciate a reply on this 
search queries
sushant at 10:06 a.m. on 24 Feb. 09
Ah .. I understand your problem better now.
here are the search queries I did"locus+standi"+"government+employee""locus+standi"+defend+ccs+conduct+rules"locus+standi"+defend+"government+employee""government+employee"

Couldn't find exactly what you are looking for.

Thank you
fdf2007in at 10:36 a.m. on 24 Feb. 09
Dear Sushant

Thank you very much for the information, it deifintely has a lot of info, but does not fit my requirements. 

Never the less, there are certain points that could possible help, and that is pertaining to Locus Standi.

Thanks a lot 
Anil Kumar Singh
Criminal Complaint on Mismanagement of Co.op Stores.
Anonymous User at 8:28 a.m. on 14 March 12
I am a  Central  Govt.Servant. One  Employees  Co.op Store  is working  in  the  Office  premises. Iwas elected  as  a Managing  Committee  member to the  Society in  the  year  1999.Subsequently I  was  elected as a Hon.Secretary of  the  Society. When  I was  finalising  A/C for the year 99-2000 it  is  found that though  the  society  was  making loss,the  earlier  committee has  presented  a  rosy picture  in the Annual  General body  meeting  and  declaring  100% dividends and good  rate of interest  in  order  to  attract  the fixed depositors to  run the society.Immediately the matter was reported  by  me  to District Registrarof the Co.operative  society and requested  for a Special Audit  on  the already  audited  Account  of the previous year which was got  passed in the general body meeting. Special Auditor foundout that there is a mismanagement of the society during  the  year  1997-98 to the tune of few  lakhs. I  again requested the Registrar to conduct a enquiry to fix  the responsibility .While the enquiry under sec.93iof the Co.op Act was going on some  F.D.holders of the Society went the Metropolitan court and filed a criminal Complaint against the present  committee members without knowing the out come of the enquiry.Since  I was not in the managing committee , I was  not summoned  by the enquiry  commission for  any of my  comments. The  Registrar has fixed responsibility on two  Person responsible  for making a wrong statements of accounts and presenting it to the general body. Now the question is the case is still pending in the Metropolitan court and I am going to retire within few months.My promotion  is still kept  in closed cover because of this case. And it may affect in getting the Pensionary benefits.Kindly advise me  what I have todo?
Post in this thread