C.K. JAFFER SHARIEF versus STATE (THROUGH CBI)

C.K. JAFFER SHARIEF versus STATE (THROUGH CBI)

On facts, officials accompanying the Minister to London assisted in discharge of official duties; decision as to their number and identity was for the Minister. There is no evidence of corrupt or illegal means, nor abuse of position for pecuniary advantage. Thus, ingredients of Section 13(1)(d) are not made out ex facie. Allowing prosecution to continue would be abuse of process; proceedings must be quashed.

Parties
Appellant: C.K. Jaffer Sharief; Respondent: State (Through CBI)
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
09 November 2012
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Supreme Court Appeal From High Court Judgment Affirming Trial Court's Rejection of Discharge Application and Refusal to Quash Criminal Proceedings
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Quashing of Criminal Proceedings, Sanction for Prosecution, Criminal Misconduct by Public Servant, Abuse of Process
Criminal Law Corruption Law Constitutional Law Quashing of Criminal Proceedings Sanction for Prosecution Criminal Misconduct by Public Servant Abuse of Process

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

C.K. Jaffer Sharief

Appellant

State (Through CBI)

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Supreme Court Appeal From High Court Judgment Affirming Trial Court's Rejection of Discharge Application and Refusal to Quash Criminal Proceedings

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether criminal proceedings against the appellant under Section 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, should continue based on the alleged actions related to officials accompanying the Minister to London
  2. 2 Whether the facts disclosed commission of any offence under Prevention of Corruption Act warranting prosecution
  3. 3 Whether continuance of proceedings without ex facie evidence constitutes abuse of process

Ratio Decidendi

On facts, officials accompanying the Minister to London assisted in discharge of official duties; decision as to their number and identity was for the Minister. There is no evidence of corrupt or illegal means, nor abuse of position for pecuniary advantage. Thus, ingredients of Section 13(1)(d) are not made out ex facie. Allowing prosecution to continue would be abuse of process; proceedings must be quashed.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • Judgment and order dated 11.04.2012 of the High Court of Delhi set aside
  • Order dated 27.01.2010 of the learned trial court set aside