Back
1953 Supreme(Bom) 67
IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
Bavdekar and Chainani H.K. , JJ.
Appellants: State of Bombay
Vs.
Respondent: Vishwakant Shrikant
Criminal Appln. for Revn. No. 1335 of 1952
Decided On: 17.04.1953
Counsels:
For Appellant/Petitioner/Plaintiff: H.M. Choksi, Govt. Pleader
For Respondents/Defendant: R.S. Dixit and S.G. Samant, Advs.
Section 6(1) of the Prevention of Corruption Act requires sanction only in the case of public servants who are in service at the time when the Court is called upon to take cognizance of the offence.
Headnote:
PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION ACT - SECTION 6(1) - SANCTION FOR PROSECUTION - PUBLIC SERVANT - INTERPRETATION - APPLICABILITY TO FORMER PUBLIC SERVANTS - SECTION 197, CR. P. C. - COMPARISON - MARGINAL NOTE - RELEVANCE.
Fact of the Case:
The opponent, a former public servant, was charged with an offence under Section 161 of the Penal Code. The Special Judge quashed the proceedings against him, holding that sanction was necessary under Section 6 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, and that the opponent was no longer in service at the time when cognizance was taken.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that Section 6(1) of the Prevention of Corruption Act requires sanction only in the case of public servants who are in service at the time when the Court is called upon to take cognizance of the offence. The court interpreted the words "public servant" in Section 6(1) to mean a person who is in service at the time when the Court is called upon to take cognizance of the offence.
Issues: 1. Whether Section 6(1) of the Prevention of Corruption Act requires sanction for the prosecution of former public servants? 2. Whether the marginal note of a statute can be used to aid in the interpretation of the language of the statute?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court interpreted the words "public servant" in Section 6(1) of the Prevention of Corruption Act to mean a person who is in service at the time when the Court is called upon to take cognizance of the offence. The court reasoned that the opening part of Section 6(1) is capable of two interpretations, one of which is that the person in regard to whom sanction is necessary must be a public servant at the time when he committed the offence. However, the court found that this interpretation would not fit in with the language used by the Legislature in clauses (a), (b), and (c) of that Sub-section, which all refer to persons who are still in service at the time when the Court is called upon to take cognizance of the offence. 2. The court held that the marginal note of a statute cannot be used to control the plain meaning of an Act, but it can be taken into consideration when there is a doubt as to what certain words which are employed in an enactment mean. However, the court found that the marginal note of Section 6(1) is perfectly general and throws no light whatsoever upon the meaning of the section.
Final Decision: The court set aside the order quashing the proceedings against the opponent and asked the learned Special Judge to proceed further with the case in accordance with the law.
1. This is an application for revision of an order passed by the Special Judge, Greater Bombay, that the proceedings, which were before him in regard to an offence under Section 161 of the Penal Code committed by one Vishwa-kant Shrikant Pandit, were void for want of sanction under Section 6 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947.
2. The opponent, who was a public servant at the time when he is alleged to have committed the offence, was no longer in service at the time when the learned Special Judge passed his order, and the learned Special Judge has passed it upon the footing that at the time when cognizance was taken in the present case, the opponent, who has been dismissed from service, was no longer in service. The learned Special Judge held that sanction was necessary under the provisions of Section 6 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, which runs as follows:
"6. (1) No Court shall take cognizance of an offence punishable under Section 161 or Section 165 of the Penal Code or under Sub-section (2) of Section 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 or some higher authority of the Central Government;
(b) in the case of a person who is employed in connection with the affairs of a Part A - State and is not removable from his office save by or with the sanction of the Provincial Government or Some higher authority, of the Provincial Government;
(c) in the case of any other person, of the authority competent to remove him from his office.
(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 authority, 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."
The learned advocate, who appears on behalf of the opponent, has pointed cut, and with some force, that the section is modelled on Section 197, Cr. P. C., which is as follows : "197. (1) When any person who is a Judge within the meaning of Section 19 of the Penal Cede, or when any Magistrate, or when any public servant who is not removable from Ms office save by or with the sanction of a State Government or the Central Government, is accused of any offence alleged to have been committed by him while acting or purporting to act in the discharge of his official duty, no Court shall take cognizance of such oflence except with the previous sanction-
(a) in the case of a person employed in connection with the affairs of the Union, of the Central Government; and
(b) in the case of a person employed in connection with the affairs of a State, of the State Government."
He then points out that the opening words of Section 197(1) raised a question as to whether sanction was or wag not necessary in the case of a person, who was no longer in service at the time when the Court is called upon to take cognizance of the offence committed by him. There was a difference between the High Courts with regard to the question as to whether in Such cases sanction was necessary, though it must be stated at the outset that so far as the offences under Section 161 or Section 165 of the Penal Code are concerned, there was no difference of opinion, for the reason that the view which prevailed when the Prevention of Corruption Act was enacted was that a public servant, who commits offences under Section 161 or Section 165, cannot possibly be said to be acting or purporting to act in the discharge of his official duly.
The learned advocate argues that even so, with regard to offences which could be said to have been committed by a public servant while acting or purporting
