Back
High Court Of Delhi
P.K.SESHAN - Appellant
Versus
STATE OF DELHI - Respondent
CRIMINAL APPEAL 264 of 1973
Decided On : 10/04/1973
PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION ACT - PUBLIC SERVANT - SANCTION FOR PROSECUTION - JURISDICTION OF SPECIAL JUDGE - INTERPRETATION OF SECTION 6 - APPLICABILITY TO FORMER PUBLIC SERVANTS - CONSTITUTIONALITY OF DISCRIMINATORY TREATMENT - SUPREME COURT PRECEDENTS - MALA FIDE FILING OF CHARGE-SHEET.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a former public servant, challenged the framing of charges against him under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 (the Act) by the Special Judge, Delhi. The petitioner argued that he could not be prosecuted under the Act as he was no longer a public servant and that the prosecution's failure to obtain sanction under section 6 of the Act rendered the proceedings against him invalid.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the provisions of section 6 of the Act, which require prior sanction for prosecution of public servants, do not apply to former public servants. The court relied on the Supreme Court's decision in S. A. Venkataraman v. State, which held that the requirement of sanction under section 6 is limited to cases where the accused is still a public servant at the time cognizance of the offense is taken. The court also rejected the petitioner's argument that the prosecution of a former public servant under the Act would violate the principle of equal protection by denying him the advantages associated with the office of a public servant while imposing on him the disadvantages associated with that office. The court held that the Act is not discriminatory and that the prosecution's decision to proceed against the petitioner without obtaining sanction was not mala fide.
Issues: 1. Whether the provisions of section 6 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, requiring prior sanction for prosecution of public servants, apply to former public servants. 2. Whether the prosecution of a former public servant under the Act violates the principle of equal protection by denying him the advantages associated with the office of a public servant while imposing on him the disadvantages associated with that office. 3. Whether the prosecution's decision to proceed against the petitioner without obtaining sanction was mala fide.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The provisions of section 6 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, requiring prior sanction for prosecution of public servants, do not apply to former public servants. 2. The prosecution of a former public servant under the Act does not violate the principle of equal protection by denying him the advantages associated with the office of a public servant while imposing on him the disadvantages associated with that office. 3. The prosecution's decision to proceed against the petitioner without obtaining sanction was not mala fide.
Final Decision: The petition was dismissed.
( 1 ) THE petitioner through this revision petition has challenged the order dated 7th June, 1973, passed by Shri O. P. Singia, Special Judge, Delhi, whereby the learned Special Judge framed charges for commission of offences of conspiracy punishable under section 120-B read with section 420 of the Indian Penal Code and section 5 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 (herein to be called "the Act") and for the substantive offences punishable under section 420 Indian Penal Code. and section 5 (2) of the Act against the petitioner and Shri R. K. Biria. The charge for the offence of conspiracy was framed against both of them and the charge of the commission of offence of cheating was framed against Shri R. K. Biria and that for the commission of offence of criminal misconduct was framed against the petitioner.
( 2 ) RELEVANT facts for disposal of this petition are that M/s. Saurashtra Chemicals under licence granted by the Government of India for manufacture of heavy and light soda ash went into production in the early part of 1960. The company applied for grant of essential Goods Import licence for import for one complete plant with bagging and weighing equipment, and accessories and spares for the manufacture of Dense Soda Ash, in the value of Rs. 6. 1 lacs. The Government allowed this import. Import licence dated 22nd September, 1962, was issued in their favour. The company further submitted another application on 22nd September, 1961, for the grant of Industrial Act Licence for manufacture of Refined Sodium Bicarbonate. This licence was issued to it on 23rd May, 1962. Another application was submitted on behalf of the Company on 7th November. 1962, for the grant of Capital Goods Import Licence for import of equipment worth Rs. 4. 5 lacs, for manufacture of Refined Sodium Bicarbonate and it included (1) Centrifuges, (2) CO Compressors and (3) Capicitor with Circuit Breakers.
( 3 ) SHRI R. K. Biria respondent was the president of the Company while the petitioner who was employed as development officer (ALK) New Delhi was to process or cause to be processed the list of equipment for necessary essentiality certificate and indigenous clearance.
( 4 ) THE case of the prosecution is that there was a conspiracy between the petitioner and Shri R. K. Biria in pursuance of which he on the suggestion of the petitioner drew or caused to be drawn up a list of four equipments including centrifuges, CO Compressors and Capacitor with Circuit Breakers and sent the same to the petitioner under letter dated 16th January, 1963, mentioning therein, that according to the petitioners suggestion a part of the licence for 6. 1 lacs for dense Soda Ash equipment, the equipment worth Rs. 4. 6 lacs required for Refined Sodium Bicorbonate was submitted with a view to overcome a reference to the C. G. Committee and other procedure. It is further alleged by the prosecution that in furtherance of the said conspiracy the petitioner made the necessary cuttings, modifications and alterations in the first draft giving an indication that the items were to be imported only for the manufacture of refined soda bicarbonate. The list corrected by the petitioner was returned for re-submission as suggested by the petitioner to Shri R. K. Biria. The company was thus enabled to get the equipments imported on the basis of the said changed list under belief that it was required for manufacture of Dense Soda Ash.
( 5 ) ON the above averments the prosecution alleges that there was a conspiracy between the two accused, by corrupt or illegal means or by otherwise abusing the petitioner s position as a public servant, for obtaining either for himself or for the other party undue advantage by agreeing to do or caused to be done by the illegal acts, by illegal means to cheat the Government of India through C. C. I, and E.
( 6 ) THE petitioner objected to the jurisdiction of the Special Judge to frame charges against him, amongst others, on the ground that t
AI
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
