The sanction for prosecution of a public servant under Section 6 of Act II[2] of 1947 is valid if it is granted by the Collector in charge of the district, even if the Collector describes himself as the District Magistrate.

( 1 ) THIS is an application in revision by Pearey Lal Patwari against his conviction under Section 161, Penal Code, by a Magistrate of Farrukhabad and the dismissal of his appeal by the Sessions judge of that District. The applicant has been sentenced to one years rigorous imprisonment. The facts of the case briefly put are as follows :

( 2 ) THE applicant was a Patwari of village Siroli in the district of Farrukhabad. In that village there was a widow Mt. Raj Kumari who had a certain tenancy land. After the death of her husband, she got a lease executed in her own favour in respect of four plots of 14 bighas. She did not know whether her name had been entered in the village records. On enquiry, she was told that the name of one Chunni was entered as a tenant and that her name was not so entered. She approached the applicant a number of times but the applicant would not make an entry in her favour without taking illegal gratification. He at first demanded a sum of Rs. 50 by way of bribe. She approached some congressmen of the village. The congressmen planned a trap. A sum of rs. 40 was settled to be paid to the applicant through one Tulai Singh. Two notes of Rs. 10 each were signed by a Magistrate, Mr. N. S. Mathur, and handed over to one Gaya Din who gave them as loan to Raj Kumari to be handed over to the patwari and Rs. 20 she had of her own. On 2nd November 1947, Raj Kumari and Tulai Singh went to the applicants house while Raivari lal, the Secretary of the Mandal Congress Committee and another villager Ram Charan and the magistrate, Shri Mathur, stood by in the vicinity of the applicant s house. Raj Kumari handed over the four notes as bribe to the applicant who was sitting on a cot with Tulai Singh. On proper signal being given the three persons, Raivari Lal, Ram Charan and Shri Mathur appeared on the scene. On seeing them the applicant took out the notes from his pocket where he had kept them after accepting them from Raj Kumari and threw them on the cot. The Magistrate asked who pearey Lal Patwary was. The applicant stood up and the Magistrate found that four notes of rupees ten each were lying on the cot on which he and Tulai Singh were sitting.

( 3 ) THE applicant was -then prosecuted. In support of the prosecution case, the prosecution examined Raivari Lal, Ram Charan, Raj Kumari, Tulai Singh, Gaya Din and Shri Mathur and others whom it is not necessary to mention. There was one important discrepancy in the statements of these witnesses. While Raivari Lal and Ram Charan stated that the patwari took out the notes from his pocket and put them on the cot when they arrived on the scene; Shri mathur merely stated that when he entered the house he saw the notes lying on the cot. He did not see the applicant taking them out from his pocket. The Magistrate believed the prosecution witnesses and convicted the accused. The appellate Court agreed with the Magistrate and maintained the conviction.

( 4 ) IN this revision two points have been urged before me. It was urged that there was no proper sanction for the prosecution of the applicant. The sanction to prosecute is required by Section 6 of Act II[2] of 1947. It is conceded that since the applicant was a Patwari, the sanction should have been of the Collector in charge of the district. The actual sanction accorded in this case was that of the District Magistrate of the District. It is not disputed that the District Magistrate was the same person as the Collector. What is urged is that, in the first place, the sanction was of the particular individual acting as a District Magistrate and not as a Collector and, in the second place, that he did not apply his mind to the question whether he should accord the sanction or not.

( 5 ) AS regards the first argument that the particular officer accorded the sanction as District magistrate and not as a Collector, I see no force in it. It is merely a technical objection without any substance. One officer holding two offices