The sanction for the prosecution of a public servant under S. 161, I. P. C. must be granted by the appropriate authority. In the case of a permanent employee of a State Government, the appropriate authority is the Governor of that State.

Judgment

GAJENDRAGADKAR, J. : The appellant R. R. Chari was a permanent employee in a gazetted post under the Government of Assam. In 1941, his services were lent to the Government of India. The first appointment which the appellant held under the Government of India was that of the Deputy Director of Metals in the Munitions Production Department at Culcutta. Then he came to Delhi on similar work in the office of the Master-General of Ordnance, which was the Steel Priority Authority during the War period. He was subsequently transferred to Kanpur as Assistant Iron & Steel Controller in 1945. Sometime thereafter, he became the Deputy Iron and Steel Controller, Kanpur Circle, which post he held for one month in September, 1945. From the 1st of January, 1946, he was appointed to the said post and he held that post until 20th September, 1946. The period covered by the charges which were eventually framed against the appellant and others is from the 1st January, 1946 to 20th September, 1946. On the latter date, the appellant proceeded on leave for four months and did not return to service either under the Government of India or under the Assam Government.

2. It appears that while the appellant had proceeded on leave, the Government of India wrote to the Assam Government on February 8, 1947 intimating that it had decided to replace the services of the appellant at the disposal of the Assam Government on the expiry of the leave granted to him with effect from 21-9-1946. The Government of India also added that the exact period of the leave granted to the appellant would be intimated to the Assam Government later. On April 28, 1947 leave granted to the appellant was gazetted with effect from September 21, 1946 for a period of four months. A subsequent notification issued by the Central Government extended the leave upto the 13th May, 1947. On this latter date, the Central Government suspended the appellant, and on a warrant issued by the District Magistrate, Kanpur, he was arrested on the 28th October, 1947. Subsequently, he was released on bail. Thereafter, the Government of India accorded sanction for the prosecution of the appellant under S. 197 of the Criminal Procedure Code on January 31, 1949. A charge-sheet was submitted by the prosecution alleging that the appellant along with three of his former assistants had committed various acts of conspiracy, corruption and forgery during the period 1-1-1946 to 20-9-1946. The other persons who were alleged to be co-conspirators with the appellant, were Vaish, a clerk in charge of licensing under the appellant, Rizwi and Rawat who were also working as clerks under the appellant. Rizwi absconded to Pakistan and Rawat died. In the result, the case instituted on the said charge sheet proceeded against the appellant and Mr. Vaish.

3. Broadly stated, the prosecution case was that during the period December, 1945 to 20th September, 1946 the appellant and Vaish and others entered into a criminal conspiracy to do illegal acts, such as the commission of offences under Ss. 161, 165, 467 I. P. C. or in the alternative, offences such as were prescribed by r. 47(3) read with r. 47(2) of the D.I.R. 1939 and abetment in the acquisition and sale of iron and steel, in contravention of the Iron and Steel (Control of Distribution) Order 1941; and that in pursuance of the said conspiracy, they did commit the aforesaid illegal acts from time to time & thus rendered themselves liable to be punished under S. 120-B of the Indian Penal Code. That was the substance of the first charge.

4. The second charge was in regard to the commission of the offence under S. 161 and it set out in detail the bribes accepted by the appellant from 14 specified persons. In the alternative, it was alleged that by virtue of the fact that the appellant accepted valuable things from the persons specified, he had committed an offence under S. 165 I.P.C.

5. The third charge was under S. 467 I.P.C., or in the alternative, under r. 47(3) read wi