Back
1995 Supreme(Mad) 622
High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N. ARUMUGHAM
Ayyasamy and Another - Appellant
Versus
State Through The Inspector of Police Vigilance and Anti-Corruption, Erode - Respondents
Crl. Appeal Nos. 326 and 329/90
Decided On : 02 August 1995
The sanctioning authority must apply its mind and get itself satisfied that a case for sanction has been made out, constituting the offences. The prosecution has to prove this in two ways: either (1) by producing the original sanction which itself contains the facts constituting the offence and the grounds of satisfaction and (2) by adducing evidence aliunde to show that facts placed before the Sanctioning Authority and the satisfaction arrived at by it.
Headnote:
PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION ACT - SECTION 5(1)(D) READ WITH SECTION 5(2) - SANCTION TO PROSECUTE - VALIDITY - REQUIREMENT OF APPLICATION OF MIND BY SANCTIONING AUTHORITY - EVIDENCE OF APPLICATION OF MIND - SUFFICIENCY - INTERPRETATION OF SECTION 6 OF THE OLD ACT.
Fact of the Case:
Two police personnel were convicted and sentenced for demanding and accepting a bribe of Rs. 300 and Rs. 200 respectively from a complainant who had lodged complaints with them regarding an assault on his employee and damage to his property. The sanction to prosecute the accused was granted by the Deputy Inspector General of Police under Section 6 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the sanction to prosecute the accused was invalid as the sanctioning authority had not applied its mind to the materials placed before it and had not followed the procedures laid down by the case laws. The court observed that the sanctioning authority had merely narrated the abstract of the allegations made against the accused but had not referred to any of the materials relied on or placed before it, such as the FIR, recovery mahazars, complaint, proceedings with regard to the trap, statements of witnesses, or the Chemical Examiner's report. The court further held that the evidence of the witness who spoke to the sanction order did not render any help to improve the case of the prosecution as he had not referred to what documents were perused by the sanctioning authority in order to arrive at the satisfaction to accord the sanction.
Issues: 1. Whether the sanction to prosecute the accused was valid. 2. Whether the sanctioning authority had applied its mind to the materials placed before it. 3. Whether the sanctioning authority had followed the procedures laid down by the case laws.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The sanction to prosecute the accused was invalid as the sanctioning authority had not applied its mind to the materials placed before it and had not followed the procedures laid down by the case laws. 2. The sanctioning authority had merely narrated the abstract of the allegations made against the accused but had not referred to any of the materials relied on or placed before it. 3. The evidence of the witness who spoke to the sanction order did not render any help to improve the case of the prosecution as he had not referred to what documents were perused by the sanctioning authority in order to arrive at the satisfaction to accord the sanction.
Final Decision: The appeals were allowed, the conviction and sentence recorded by the trial court were set aside, and the appellants were acquitted of all charges.
Two police personnel have filed these two appeals against the judgment of conviction and sentence recorded by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Periyar District, Erode, in Spl. C.C. No. 252 of 1987 dated 19-4-1990, convicting both the accused under Section 5(1)(d) read with Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, and sentencing them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years each and to pay a fine of Rs. 1, 000/- in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a further period of three months. Though the accused were also found guilty for the offence under Section 161 of the Indian Penal Code, no separate sentence was awarded against the appellants
2. The first appellant/accused by name Ayyasamy was the Sub-Inspector of Police on duty in Kundadam Police Station in Periyar District on 24-8-1986 and the second appellant/accused by name Krishnasamy was the Police Constable and Writer in the said Police Station. While they were discharging their duties in such capacity in Kundadam Police Station, P.W. 1 by name Thiruvengadasamy, a resident of N.G.O. Nagar, Dharapuram, during 1985-86 took a toddy shop and two arrack shops in the auction, bearing numbers 35, 30 and 31 respectively, and thus, he was running the arrack shop number 31 situated in Kommanaickanpatti. On 12-8-1986, at about 6 p.m. since an employee of his arrack shop by name Rajendran was beaten by Annadurai and others and caused heavy damages to the goods and materials kept in his shop and on his report to P.W. 1, he went and verified on the next day and found the damages, went to the Kundadam Police Station, where he found the Head Constable by name Aruldass and on being appraised that the first accused/appellant had gone to Dharapuram, he went there also and informed about his intending complaint. But on his instruction he returned to Kundadam Police Station and lodged the complaint at about 7 p.m. with the Police Station, which is marked as Ex.P. 1 dated 13-8-1986. The first accused/appellant was stated to have promised that he would enquire the matter
3. Then, again on 22-8-1986 at about 7 p.m. when Rathinasamy and others tried to trespass his shop at Bommanaickanpatti and attempted to commit the same mischief and on getting the said information, P.W. 1, again had been to the Kundadam Police Station but however, he lodged the complaint Ex.P.2 to the second appellant/accused and got the receipt for the same, which was marked as Ex.P. 3. The second complaint dated 23-8-1986 was marked as Ex. P.6 and the receipt dated 23-8-1986 was marked as Ex. P.3. Then on the next day, when P.W. 1 met the first accused/appellant at about 11 a.m. it is said he was demanded to pay a sum of Rs. 300/- to the first accused and a sum of Rs. 200/- to the second accused/appellant, for which, P.W.1 had agreed to bring it out of fear. However, he decided not to give accordingly but to lodge a complaint to the Vigilance and Anti Corruption squad. Consequently, he went to Erode and on the next day at about 6.45 a.m. gave a complaint Ex. P.4 to the then Inspector of Police by name Ramasamy, upon which Ex. P.5, First Information Report was prepared and signed by P.W. 1 followed by the requisitioning of two witnesses viz. P.W. 2 and P.W. 3 from the Electricity Board and Housing Board. They were introduced and Ex. P. 4 was read over to them. The Inspector prepared a solution with a powder and asked P.W. 2 and P.W. 3 to dip their hands in it and there was no change of colour. Later he took two ten rupee notes and smeared a powder on them and gave them to P.W. 2 and P.W. 3 and then asked them to dip their fingers in the solution already prepared and the solution turned pink in colour. When the Inspector asked P.W. 1 whether he had brought the money, P.W. 1 handed over three hundred rupee notes and four fifty rupee notes, which are M.O. 1 series and MD 2 series respectively. The currency notes were sprayed with phenolphthalein powder and kept in a bag, of
