CHAKRAVARTTI, C. J.

( 1 ) WE are of opinion that this is a case where we ought to grant leave to appeal under Article 134 (1) (c) of the Constitution.

( 2 ) THE application is against an order of a Division Bench of this Court, dated 1-12-1954, by which the conviction of the petitioner under Section 161, Penal Code as also under Section 5 (2), read with Section 5 (1) (d) of Act 2 of 1947, by a Special Judge was upheld.

( 3 ) BRIEFLY stated, the prosecution case was that one Doraiswami, who had himself been a Railway Officer at one time, set up after his retirement something like a business of acting on behalf of persons lodging claims with the Railway. That profession or vocation brought him into contact with the petitioner who was an Assistant Supervisor of the Bengal Nagpur Railway and whose duty it was to deal with claims. It was alleged that on various occasions the petitioner accepted illegal gratification from Doraiswami as a consideration for showing him favour in respect of the claim cases in which Doraiswami was interested. The sums were small, such as Rs. 10/- on one occasion and Rs. 15/- on another, but they were, nevertheless, illegal gratification. After these dealings had proceeded for some time, they appeared to have attracted the attention of the police and an Officer from Puri is said to have visited Doraiswami at his place of business in Vizianagaram, which led to the enquiry resulting in the present prosecution. Doraiswami, it is said, informed, the police of what had been going on between him and the petitioner and thereupon it was decided to lay a trap in order that the petitioner might be caught red-handed. Negotiations were opened with the petitioner by Doraiswami in respect of some claim cases still pending and it was alleged that a bribe of Rs. 100/-was agreed to, In the meantime, the police completed their arrangements for laying a trap and requisitioned the services of one Mr. Ghose, who is an officer of the Postal Department, to assist them in the arrest of the petitioner and the seizure of illegal gratification from his person. It is said that on 12-5-1952, the petitioner and Doraiswami went to a coffee house at Chittaranjan Avenue by arrangement and took their scat at a table for purposes of refreshment. After coffee had been ordered, drunk and paid for, Doraiswami is said to have handed over to the petitioner a sum of Rs. 100/- in currency notes, the numbers of which had previously been taken down by the police officers and Mr. Ghose. A large body of police officers were lying about and when they saw money passing, they immediately surrounded the petitioner and challenged him about his having received Rs. 100/- as bribe. Nonplussed by that sudden challenge, the petitioner is said to have produced the notes and also a list of cases on which were entered the numbers of the claim cases in respect of which the bribe was being paid.

( 4 ) THE petitioner's defence was that he was wholly innocent and that the notes and the list alleged to have been found on his person had not, in fact, been so found, but had been planted on him by one of the police officers by means of a sleight of hand.

( 5 ) THE defence did not appeal to the trial Judge, nor to this Court on appeal. The petitioner was convicted and sentenced in the manner I have already stated.

( 6 ) IN support of the present application, Mr. Mukherjee took a number of points, but I think one of them is sufficient for the purpose of granting his client the leave asked for.

( 7 ) IT was contended that the sanction on which the prosecution was founded was not a sanction in accordance with law and that being so, the entire proceeding had been fundamentally bad. There can be no question, in view of the clear terms of Section 6 of Act 2 of 1947, that a valid sanction is au essential requisite for a valid prosecution under the Act, The sanction that was actually relied on in this case is to be found at page 9 of the paper book prepared for the appeal

Click Here to Read the rest of this document