1973 Supreme(Raj) 184
RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
M.L.Joshi, J.
D.S. Bhandari - Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 81 of 1971,
Decided On : 2-05-1973
For the Appellant:V.S. Dave with J.K. Singhi, Advocates.
For the State:R.S. Parihar, Advocate.
The grant of sanction for prosecution under Section 6(1)(c) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 is an executive act and not a judicial act, and the satisfaction which the sanctioning authority must have before according sanction is of a subjective character and not of an objective nature.
Headnote:
SANCTION - PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION ACT, 1947 - SECTION 6(1)(C) - VALIDITY OF SANCTION - REQUIREMENT OF PLACING INVESTIGATION PAPERS BEFORE SANCTIONING AUTHORITY - NOT MANDATORY - SUFFICIENCY OF FACTS IN SANCTION ORDER TO CONSTITUTE PRIMA FACIE CASE.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant, a Development Officer of the Life Insurance Corporation of India, was convicted under Sections 420, 468 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 5(1)(d) read with Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 for procuring two insurance policy proposals from a person suffering from paralysis and high blood pressure, knowing that he was not fit to be insured under the L.I.C. rules. The appellant challenged the validity of the sanction granted for his prosecution, arguing that the sanctioning authority had not applied its mind to the facts of the case and that all the relevant materials were not placed before it.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the sanction order contained all the necessary facts to constitute the offence against the accused and that the prosecution was not required to produce extraneous evidence to prove that the facts were placed before the sanctioning authority. The court further held that the act of granting sanction is of an executive nature and not a judicial act, and that the satisfaction which the sanctioning authority must have before according sanction is of a subjective character and not of an objective nature. The court also held that the law does not provide for the placing of the investigation papers before the sanctioning authority and that all that is necessary is that the facts constituting the offence must be placed before the sanctioning authority in order to obtain the sanction.
Issues: 1. Whether the sanctioning authority had applied its mind to the facts of the case before granting sanction? 2. Whether all the relevant materials were placed before the sanctioning authority prior to the grant of sanction?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The sanction order contained all the necessary facts to constitute the offence against the accused, and the prosecution was not required to produce extraneous evidence to prove that the facts were placed before the sanctioning authority. 2. The act of granting sanction is of an executive nature and not a judicial act, and the satisfaction which the sanctioning authority must have before according sanction is of a subjective character and not of an objective nature. 3. The law does not provide for the placing of the investigation papers before the sanctioning authority, and all that is necessary is that the facts constituting the offence must be placed before the sanctioning authority in order to obtain the sanction.
Final Decision: The court overruled the preliminary objection raised by the appellant and ordered that the case be fixed for hearing on merits.
JUDGMENT
1. :- The appellant D.S. Bhandari has been convicted by the learned Special Judge for Rajasthan Jaipur City hereinafter called the Special Judge under Section 420 Indian Penal Code and Section 468 Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo 6 months' rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 100/- on each count. He has also been convicted and sentenced under Section 5(1)(d) read with Section 5(2), of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, to undergo one year's rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 100/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo two months' rigorous imprisonment. Being aggrieved, the appellant has come up in appeal before this Court.
2. The appellant D.S. Bhandari was serving and functioning as a Development Officer Life Insurance Corporation of India, hereinafter called the L.I.C. at Sumerpur under Branch Office Pali Rajasthan. While functioning in that capacity it is alleged by the prosecution that he secured two insurance policy proposals Nos. 7245-323 and 6747-323 for an amount of Rs. 10,000/- and Rs. 20,000/- respectively from one Davalal Shah of village Arepura on 20th of January, 1965, although the prosecution alleged that the accused had wrongly shown the village Bairemi. The prosecution case is that Dayalal Shah whose proposal forms for insurance were got filled by the accused was suffering from paralysis since 30th of October, 1959, and also from High blood pressure and consequently was not at all a fit person to be insured under the Rules of the L.I.C. The accused, according to the prosecution, before getting the forms filled knew the state of health of Dayalal Shah fully well. Nevertheless he got filled the aforesaid two proposals and also managed to obtain two false medical reports on 29.1.1965 and falsely mentioned the name of Danmal as insurance agent in respect of those two proposals although Danmal was not party to that proposal. This according to the prosecution was done by the accused with a view to gain undue pecuniary advantage for himself or to earn a departmental credit. The prosecution further alleged that the accused dishonestly induced the L.I.C. to deliver the aforesaid two policies and thereby criminally misconducted himself as a public servant. The police after investigation submitted a challan against the accused for committing offences under Section 5(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, read with Section 5(2) of the Act and Sections 420 and 468 Indian Penal Code.
3. The accused pleaded not guilty in reply to the charge read over to him. The prosecution examined as many as 23 witnesses and had exhibited a number of documents in support of its case. The accused in his examination under Section 342 Criminal Procedure Code denied to have procured business from Dayalal Shah and consequently contested the charge levelled against him. besides stating other facts in his defence which I do not think it necessary to state them here at this stage. After the trial the accused was convicted as stated above. Being dissatisfied accused has appealed.
4. A preliminary objection has been raised by the learned counsel for the appellant that before the launching of the prosecution against the accused-appellant under Section 5(1)(d) read with Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act no valid sanction was obtained by the prosecution which was a condition precedent for the prosecution of the accused and consequently the trial against him was wholly vitiated. The arguments on merits were not addressed for the time being as counsel for both the sides agreed that the preliminary point in respect of the sanction may be decided first. It was on account of the insistence of the counsel on both the sides that the arguments on merits were deferred and the arguments on the preliminary point were heard for deciding it first.
5. Mr. V.S. Dave while elaborating his arguments on the point of sanction has urged that the sanctioning authority had not applied its mind
Click Here to Read the rest of this document
Back
