Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

1957 Supreme(SC) 144

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
3rd December, 1957
SINHA, IMAM AND KAPUR JJ.
S. A. Venkataraman, Appellant
Versus
The State, Respondent.
Criminal Appeals Nos. 130 and 25 of 1956.
Criminal Appeal No. 130 of 1956.
Criminal Appeal No. 25 of 1956.
Advocates appeared
Mr. N. C. Chatterje, Senior Advocate (Mr. C. V. L. Narayan, Advocate with him), (in No. 130/ 56) and Mr. Jai Gopal Sethi, Senior Advocate (Mr. Naunit Lal, Advocate, with him) (in No. 25/56), for Appellants; Mr. C. K. Daphtary, Solicitor General of India, (M/s. A. M. Chatterjee, H. R. Khanna and R. H. Dhebar, Advocates, with him), for Respondents (in both appeals).

Advocates:
A.K.BASU CHOUDHURY, C.K.DAFTARY, C.R.Pattabhi raman, C.V.L.NARAYAN, K.JAYRAMAN GOWDA, M.C.SETALVAD, P.G.COKHALE, PARAS A.MEHTA, R.Ganapathy Iyer

The provisions of Section 6 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, require that, for a court to take cognizance of an offence punishable under Sections 161, 164, or 165 of the Indian Penal Code or Section 5(2) of the Act, alleged to have been committed by a public servant, two conditions must be fulfilled: (1) the offence must have been committed by a public servant, and (2) the person accused must still be a public servant removable from his office by a competent authority.

Headnote:
PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION ACT, 1947 - SECTION 6 - SANCTION FOR PROSECUTION - PUBLIC SERVANT - STATUS AT THE TIME OF COMMISSION OF OFFENCE AND AT THE TIME OF TAKING COGNIZANCE - INTERPRETATION.
Fact of the Case:

The appellants were convicted under Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 (Act II of 1947) (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and sentenced to imprisonment. They appealed against their conviction and sentence to the Punjab High Court, which dismissed their appeals and enhanced the sentence. The appellants then filed special leave petitions in the Supreme Court, limited to the question of whether the trial court had jurisdiction to take cognizance of the offence for want of sanction under Section 6 of the Act.
Finding of the Court:

The Supreme Court held that Section 6 of the Act required that, for a court to take cognizance of an offence punishable under Sections 161, 164, or 165 of the Indian Penal Code or Section 5(2) of the Act, alleged to have been committed by a public servant, two conditions must be fulfilled: (1) the offence must have been committed by a public servant, and (2) the person accused must still be a public servant removable from his office by a competent authority. In the present case, the appellants had ceased to be public servants at the time the court took cognizance of the offences alleged to have been committed by them as public servants. Accordingly, the provisions of Section 6 of the Act did not apply, and the prosecution against them was not vitiated by the lack of a previous sanction by a competent authority.
Issues: Whether a sanction under Section 6 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, was required before a court could take cognizance of an offence punishable under Sections 161, 164, or 165 of the Indian Penal Code or Section 5(2) of the Act, alleged to have been committed by a person who at the time the court was asked to take cognizance was not a public servant but was so at the time of the commission of the offence.
Ratio Decidendi: The court interpreted the provisions of Section 6 of the Act and held that the status of the accused at the time of the commission of the offence was not the essence of the matter, but rather his status at the time the court was asked to take cognizance of the offence. In order for Section 6 to apply, not only must the offence have been committed by a public servant, but the person accused must still be a public servant removable from his office by a competent authority at the time the court is asked to take cognizance.
Final Decision: The appeals were dismissed.

Judgment

IMAM, J. : A question of law, common to these appeals by special leave, requires determination; hence they were heard together. Special leave in Criminal Appeal No. 130 of 1956 was limited to the question whether the trial court had jurisdiction to take cognizance of the offence for want of sanction under S. 6 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 (Act II of 1947), hereinafter referred to as the Act Criminal Appeal No. 25 of 1956 was not so limited and additional points were raised for our consideration, to which reference will be made when that appeal is specifically dealt with.

2. The question of law, common in both these appeals, is whether there was any necessity for a sanction under S. 6 of the Act before a court could take cognizance of an offence under S. 161 of the Indian Penal Code or S. 5 (2) of the Act or both, alleged to have been committed by a person who at the time the court was asked to take cognizance was not a public servant but was so at the time of the commission of the offence.

3. In Criminal Appeal No. 130 of 1956, the appellant was convicted under S. 5 (2) of the Act and sentenced to six months simple imprisonment by the Special Judge, Delhi. He appealed against his conviction and sentence to the Punjab High Court. That Court while admitting the appeal issued notice upon the appellant to show cause why his sentence should not be enhanced. The High Court untimately dismissed his appeal and enhanced the sentence of six months imprisonment to two years rigorous imprisonment. As in this appeal special leave has been granted limited to the question already stated, it is unnecessary to set out the prosecution case against the appellant.

4. In Criminal Appeal No. 25 of 1956 the appellant had applied to the Allahabad High Court under S. 561A of the Code of Criminal Procedure for the quashing of the proceedings pending against him before the Special Judge. The application was dismissed. It is against the order dismissing his application that this appeal has been filed by the appellant.

5. It is admitted that at the time the Special Judges concerned purported to take cognizance the appellants were not public servants and that no order of sanction under S. 6 of the Act by a competent authority was on the record. At the time that the appellants are alleged to have committed the offence they were public servants.

6. Section 6 of the Act states :

"6. Previous sanction necessary for prosecution :

(1) No court shall take cognizance of an offence punishable under S. 161 or S. 164 or section 165 of the Indian Penal Code (Act 45 of 1860), or under sub-section (2) of S. 5 of this Act, alleged to have been committed by a public servant, except with the previous sanction,

(a) in the case of a person who is employed in connection with the affairs of the Union and is not removable from his office save by or with the sanction of the Central Government, of the Central Government.

(b) in the case of a person who is employed in connection with the affairs of a State and is not removable from his office save by or with the sanction of the State Government, of the State Government.

(2) Where for any reason whatsoever any doubt arises whether the previous sanction as required under sub-section (1) should be given by the Central or State Government or any other uthority, such sanction shall be given by that Government or authority which would have been competent to remove the public servant from his office at the time when the offence was alleged to have been committed."

There is no dispute that if at the time when a court purports to take cognizance of offences punishable under Ss. 161, 164 or S. 165 of the Indian Penal Code or S. 5 (2) of the Act committed by a public servant and that person is a public servant, cognizance cannot be taken by a court unless a sanction by the competent authority has been previously accorded. The real contr

Click Here to Read the rest of this document