PC Act | Witnesses Turning Hostile In Departmental Proceedings No Ground To Seek Discharge In Criminal Trial : Supreme Court

Reiterating that a discharge in departmental proceedings does not automatically absolve a public servant in a criminal case, the Supreme Court has observed that exoneration is comparatively easier in disciplinary inquiries because witnesses often turn hostile, whereas in criminal trials witnesses depose on oath and risk prosecution for perjury if they make false statements.

“when a witness deposing on oath in a criminal trial resiles from the original version and does not support the prosecution case, he would be liable to face prosecution for perjury. Under this pressure, the witness may choose to speak the truth. Thus, the mere fact that some of the witnesses did not support the department's case in the disciplinary proceedings would, by itself, not give any assurance that they would behave in the same manner at the criminal trial.”, observed a bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta while hearing an appeal filed by an public servant in a trap case under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (“PC Act”) who challenged the legal validity of the order granting sanction to prosecute him, arguing that the sanction was not granted by the competent authority as per Section 19(1) of the PC Act.

While accepting his contentions regarding the validity of the sanction, it was also submitted by the Appellant before the Court that his exoneration in the disciplinary proceedings would also entitle him to seek exoneration in a separate criminal case pending against him. Rejecting this argument, the judgment authored by Justice Mehta observed that exoneration if disciplinary proceedings is quite common based on hostile testimonies of the witnesses as no risk of offence of perjury is associated there, however in criminal cases it wouldn't be easy for the same witness or witnesses to make hostile statements (not supporting the prosecution's case) as a risk of commission of an offence of perjury is associated in the criminal trial because the statements are given on oath.

“The possibility of the criminal case still resulting into conviction, irrespective of the factum of the witnesses turning hostile being a realistic possibility, we feel that there is no merit behind the argument of Shri Kamat (appellant's counsel) that exoneration in the departmental proceeding should lead to automatic discharge in the criminal case.”, the court said.

Cause Title: T. MANJUNATH VERSUS THE STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ANR.

Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1147

Click here to download judgment

Also From Judgment: PC Act | Sections 19(3) & (4) Irrelevant When Sanction Is Quashed By Trial Court Itself : Supreme Court