IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Agarwala, J.
KARIM BUX - Appellant
Versus
REX - Respondents
Criminal Revn. 906 Of 1949
Decided On : 02/27/1950
SANCTION TO PROSECUTE - PUBLIC SERVANT - PREVIOUS SANCTION REQUIRED - ACT II [2] OF 1947, SECTION 6 - SANCTION MUST BE GIVEN AFTER ALL FACTS COLLECTED AGAINST ACCUSED - MERE ROUTINE ORDER PASSING ON CHARGE-SHEET TO COURT NOT SUFFICIENT.
Fact of the Case:
Karim Bux, a police constable, was convicted Under Section 164, Penal Code, for demanding and accepting a bribe from the driver of a truck. The prosecution was initiated without obtaining the prior sanction of the Superintendent of Police, as required by Section 6 of Act II [2] of 1947.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that there was no previous sanction to prosecute the applicant, and that the entire proceedings were, therefore, without jurisdiction.
Issues: Whether a previous sanction to prosecute was required in this case, and whether the sanction obtained was valid.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that Section 6 of Act II [2] of 1947 requires a previous sanction to prosecute a public servant for certain offences, including the offence of bribery under Section 164 of the Penal Code. The sanction must be given after all the facts have been collected against the accused, and it must be a deliberate and formal decision of the sanctioning authority. A mere routine order passing on a charge-sheet to the court is not sufficient.
Final Decision: The court allowed the revision application, set aside the conviction and sentence imposed on the applicant, and ordered that the fine paid by him be refunded.
( 1 ) THIS is an application in revision by Karim Bux, a police constable of Fatehpur, who has been convicted Under Section 164, Penal Code, and sentenced to one years rigorous imprisonment and Rs. 100/- as fine by the Sessions Judge of Fatehpur hearing an appeal against the applicants conviction by a Magistrate not only Under Section 161 but also Under Section 384, Penal Code. The conviction Under Section 384, Penal Code, was set aside.
( 2 ) THE only point for consideration before me is whether there was a sanction to prosecute the applicant or not. The sanction to prosecute is required by Section 6 of Act II [2] of 1947 which runs as follows: section 6.-- "no Court shall take cognizance of an offence punishable Under Section 161 or section 165, 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 ). . . . . . . . (b) in the case of a person who is employed in connection with the affairs of a Province and is not removable from his office save by or with the sanction of the Provincial Government or some higher authority, Provincial Government; (c) in the case of any other person, of the authority competent to remove him from his office. " the applicant being a police constable, it is common ground that the authority whose sanction was necessary is the Superintendent of Police of Fatehpur. The essential facts which are not disputed before me are as follows:
( 3 ) THERE was a general complaint that constables on the road sides were extorting money and taking bribes from owners and drivers of trucks exporting grain from one place to another. This fact was brought to the notice of the District Magistrate of Allahabad by an Inspector of the anti-Corruption Department, U. P. , Allahabad. The District Magistrate accordingly deputed one magistrate of the first class to accompany the Inspector and to arrest such offenders. On the night between and and 3rd March 1947 at about 9 P. M. Th. Raghupal Singh Inspector accompanied by Shri Shiam Saran Das, Magistrate, first class, arrived at Rasulabad in the district of Fatehpur. Bhola Nath, proprietor of a firm of Allahabad, and Rameshwar, Manager of a truck, along with its driver Jaigopal, met them at that place, as previously arranged. The Magistrate signed Government promissory notes of the value of Rs. 30/- and handed them over to the proprietor of the truck which was loaded with mustard seeds. The Magistrate and the Inspector took their seats in the truck and proceeded to Khaga where they arrived at about midnight. The truck was stopped by the applicant Karim Bus constable who was on duty at that time. He demanded his haq and after some talk Rs. 12/- were paid to the applicant as illegal gratification for allowing the truck to proceed further. This amount of Rs. 12/- was paid in one ten rupee note and two notes of Re. 1 each already signed by the Magistrate. As the truck was about to proceed after the payment of the bribe, it was stopped and the Magistrate and the Inspector alighted from the truck and forthwith arrested the applicant. Then a report of this incident was made by the inspector to the District Magistrate of Allahabad, who forwarded the same to the Superintendent of Police of Allahabad, who in his turn forwarded it to the Superintendent of Police, Fatehpur, for necessary action. Then the Superintendent of Police, Fatehpur, made a report to the District magistrate, Fatehpur, for orders to investigate the case Under Section 155 (2), Criminal P. C. The District Magistrate of Fatehpur ordered the investigation to be made. After the investigation, the applicant was prosecuted and convicted as aforesaid.
( 4 ) WHAT happened between the completion of the investigation and the submission of the case to the Court is not fully known from the documents placed on the record. The only document on the record is a charge-sheet dated 19th June 1947 prepared by Zahid Husain, investi
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.