Judgment

MITTER, J. - The appellant was convicted of an offence under Section 5 (1) (d} read with Section 5 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and sentenced to six months simple imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default of payment of fine to further simple imprisonment for six months by the Special Judge, Bidar in Special Case No. 112 of 1963. He appealed to the High Court against the conviction and on the admission of the appeal, the High Court suo motu gave him notice for enhancement of the sentence. Subsequently the State also filed Criminal Petition No. 126 of 1965 for enhancement of the sentence on the ground that under Section 5 (2) of the Act the minimum punishment was to be not less than one year unless the Court for special reasons thought fit to do otherwise. The reasons given by the Special Judge did not appeal to the High Court which dismissed the appeal of the appellant and confirmed the conviction under Section 5 (1) (d). It reduced the fine of Rs. 1,000/- to one of Rs. l00/- but increased the sentence under Section 5 (2) of the Act for the offence under Section 5 (1) (d) to simple imprisonment for one year and in default of payment of fine to simple imprisonment for one month.

2. The main point advanced by Mr. Mohan Kumarmangalam appearing for the appellant was that the sanction to investigate the offence given by the Magistrate was not proper inasmuch as he had not recorded any reason as to why he had given permission to an inspector of police, P. Ramarao, to investigate the offence of criminal misconduct of obtaining illegal gratification.

3. Section 5-A of the Act contains certain safeguards from undue harassment of public officers from enquiry by ensuring that the investigation in regard to the offences specified is conducted by a police officer of certain designated high ranks except under orders of a Presidency Magistrate or a Magistrate of the First Class. A police inspector does not come within the designated ranks and such an officer could only investigate into the offences wherewith the appellant was charged by order of a Magistrate.

4. In order to appreciate the point urged on behalf of the appellant, it is necessary to state in brief the events as disclosed in the prosecution case culminating in his trial and conviction. The appellant was the District Surgeon in Bidar in 1961. One Abdul Qadeer who figured as the complainant in the case had submitted an application to the office of the Divisional Controller M. G. R. T. D. Gulbarga for an appointment to the post of bus conductor. To get the appointment he had to secure a certificate of training in First Aid. He approached the appellant who told him that no such certificate could be given from his office as there was no arrangement there for giving the requisite training. After rejecting the complainant s written application to him as the District Medical Officer Bidar, the appellant asked the complainant to meet him at his residence the same day. On the 2nd March the complainant met the appellant as requested when the appellant demanded Rs. 150/- for issuing the required certificate. The appellant informed the complainant that as the certificate had to be issued without training the money asked for must be paid. The complainant met the appellant again on the 22nd March and told him that he had arranged for Rs. 50/- and could pay some more money afterwards. On receipt of Rs. 50/- the appellant gave him a letter addressed to the Medical Officer Bhalki and two typewritten first aid certificate forms. The appellant asked the complainant to give Rs. 20 to the Medical Officer at Bhalki for getting the latter to sign the certificate and bring the same back to the appellant for his signature on payment of a further sum of Rs. 50/-. On the 25th March 1961 the complainant went to Bhalki and gave the letter and the forms of the certificate to the Medical Officer. He also paid Rs. 20/- and got the certificate signed by the staid officer without receivi