Is Sanction To Prosecute A Person Not Being Public Servant Required Under Essential Commodities Act? Delhi High Court Issues Notice
The Delhi High Court has issued notice on a petition raising a question as to whether a sanction to prosecute an accused under Essential Commodities Act is required when such a person is not a public servant. Justice Subramonium Prasad issued notice on the petition assailing the orders passed by Chief Metropolitan Magistrate of the Karkardooma Courts whereby it was observed that sanction was...
The Delhi High Court has issued notice on a petition raising a question as to whether a sanction to prosecute an accused under Essential Commodities Act is required when such a person is not a public servant.
Justice Subramonium Prasad issued notice on the petition assailing the orders passed by Chief Metropolitan Magistrate of the Karkardooma Courts whereby it was observed that sanction was not obtained by the Police as warranted under sec. 15A of the Essential Commodities Act, to proceed against one Braham Wati.
The Trial Court had also granted a final opportunity to the State to obtain sanction, subject to a cost of Rs.20,000. It had also directed the Commissioner of Delhi Police to conduct an enquiry and fix responsibility on the Officers on whom cost must be fixed.
Sec. 15A of the Act deals with Prosecution of public servants. It states that where any person who is a public servant is accused of any offence alleged to have been committed by him while acting or purporting to act in the discharge of his duty in pursuance of an order made under sec. 3, no court shall take cognizance of such offence except with the previous sanction of the Central or State Government, as the case may be.
It was thus the case of the petitioner, a Sub-Inspector in Delhi Police, that in the first place, no sanction is required to prosecute the accused under Essential Commodities Act for the reason that the person against whom the prosecution was to be launched was not a public servant.
Furthermore, it was argued that the CMM had exceeded his jurisdiction by getting into the administrative functioning of the authorities which could not be done because of separation of powers.
On the other hand, Additional Standing Counsel Avi Singh, appearing for the State, submitted that there is a provision for imposition of fine in the Delhi Police Act.
Issuing notice on the petition, the Court granted three weeks' time to the State to file reply in the matter.
The matter will now be heard on March 22.
"Till the next date of hearing, the order dated 20.09.2021 shall be kept in abeyance," the Court ordered.
Case Title: SI YASHPAL SINGH & ANR. v. STATE NCT OF DELHI & ORS.