A valid sanction under S. 6 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 must be accorded by the competent authority after application of mind to the facts and circumstances of the case.

Headnote:
PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION ACT, 1947 - S. 6 - SANCTION FOR PROSECUTION - VALIDITY - ESSENTIALS - SANCTION ACCORDED BY COMPETENT AUTHORITY AFTER APPLICATION OF MIND TO FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF CASE - VALID.
Fact of the Case:

The appellant, an Assistant Supervisor of Claim Cases of the Bengal Nagpur Railway, was convicted under S. 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 and S. 161 of the Indian Penal Code for accepting a bribe of Rs. 100 from one Doraiswamy as a motive or reward for doing an official act and showing favour to Doraiswamy in seeing that a speedy and favourable settlement of the claim cases preferred by him against the Bengal Nagpur Railway. The appellant challenged the validity of the sanction granted under S. 6 of the Act, arguing that the sanctioning authority, the Chief Commercial Superintendent of the Railway, had not applied his mind to the facts and circumstances of the case.
Finding of the Court:

The Court held that the sanction accorded was a valid sanction. The Court observed that the sanction clearly stated all the facts which concerned the prosecution case alleged against the appellant with reference to his acceptance of Rs. 100 from Doraiswamy on May 12, 1952, in circumstances which, if established, would constitute offences under S. 161, Indian Penal Code and S. 5 (2) of the Act. The Court also noted that the sanctioning authority had stated that he had applied his mind and was of the opinion that in the interests of justice the appellant should be prosecuted. The Court further observed that the sanctioning authority was an officer of his rank in the Railway and must have been fully aware that the responsibility of according to sanction against an official of the Railway subordinate to him lay upon him. The Court concluded that it was inconceivable that an officer of the rank of the sanctioning authority would blindly sign a ready-made sanction prepared by the police.
Issues: Whether the sanction accorded for the prosecution of the appellant was a valid sanction.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court held that a valid sanction under S. 6 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 must be accorded by the competent authority after application of mind to the facts and circumstances of the case. The Court observed that the sanction in the present case satisfied this requirement as it clearly stated the facts of the case and the sanctioning authority had stated that he had applied his mind and was of the opinion that in the interests of justice the appellant should be prosecuted.
Final Decision: The Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the conviction and sentence of the appellant.

Judgment

JAFER IMAM, J. : The High Court of Calcutta certified under Art. 134(1)( c) of the Constitution that the case before us was a fit one for appeal to this Court. The ground for the granting of the certificate, as stated by the High Court, will be considered in due course.

2. The appellant was convicted under S. 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 (Central Act II of 1947), hereinafter referred to as the Act, and under S. 161 of the Indian Penal Code by a Special Judge who sentenced him under S. 161 to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months and to pay a fine of Rs. 500 in default to suffer further rigorous imprisonment for one month. No separate sentence was passed under S. 5(2) of the Act. He unsuccessfully appealed to the High Court against his conviction and sentence.

3. The charges framed against the appellant under S. 161 of the Indian Penal Code, in sub-stance, stated that on or about 12-5-1952, he had accepted Rs. 100 as illegal gratification from V. S. Doraiswamy as a motive or reward for doing an official act and showing in the exercise of his official functions favour to Doraiswamy in seeing that a speedy and favourable settlement of the claim cases preferred by him against the Bengal Nagpur Railway, subsequently the Eastern Railway. The charge under S. 5(2) of the Act which related to the same transaction stated that the appellant had accepted the aforesaid sum of Rs. 100 by corrupt or illegal means or by otherwise abusing his position as a public servant.

4. It is unnecessary to set out in any great details the story of the prosecution as to how Doraiswamy and the appellant came into contact and how the process of giving bribe to the appellant began. They met in 1950. Rs. 10 was paid to the appellant in October, 1951 and Rs. 15 in January, 1952 as the result of the appellant asking Doraiswamy for some grantification for speedy and favourable disposal of his claim cases. The appellant was at that time Assistant Supervisor of Claim Cases of the Bengal Nagpur Railway of the Vizianagram Section. On some secret information, the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Special Police Establishment at Puri directed Inspector G. N. Brahma to contact Doraiswamy in connection with a report of alleged dishonesty by railway officials. Brahma met Doraiswamy and asked him to meet him again at Calcutta on 10-5-1952, after the latter had filed a complaint along with some letters said to have been written by the appellant. Permission was obtained from the Chief Presidency Magistrate, Calcutta to investigate the case. Thereafter Doraiswamy met the appellant in Calcutta and it was settled that the former would pay the latter Rs. 100 on 12-5-1952, at 6 p.m. at the India Coffee House. Doraiswamy informed the police of the arrangement. Marked ten-rupee currency notes were given to Doraiswamy. The appellant and Doraiswamy met at the India Coffee House as arranged. There was a talk between them about expediting the claim cases which were being dealt with by the appellant and a list of them was given to him. This list and the bundle of marked currency notes which Doraiswamy gave him were put in the left upper pocket of his shirt by the appellant. The Inspectors H. K. Mukherjee and S. B. Mitra along with G. N. Ghosh, an Assistant Director of Postal Services and Brahma came up to the appellant. He was accused by the police of having received 10 ten-rupee currency notes as bribe from Doraiswamy and was asked to produce them. After some hesitation the appellant produced the currency notes as well as the list given to him by Doraiswamy. The number of the currency notes were checked and found to tally with the previously noted numbers of the currency notes given to Doraiswamy for handing them over to the appellant. The case of the prosecution was found to have been proved by both the courts below and the appellant was convicted and sentenced as stated above.

5. It may be stated at the outset that the current findings of fact arrived a

Click Here to Read the rest of this document