Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Agarwala, J.
DHARAM SARUP - Appellant
Versus
STATE - Respondents
Criminal Appeal 972 Of 1950
Decided On : 08/08/1952
PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION ACT - SANCTION FOR PROSECUTION - VALIDITY - FACTS DISCLOSED TO SANCTIONING AUTHORITY - SUFFICIENCY - SANCTION FOR PROSECUTION UNDER SECTION 161, PENAL CODE - WHETHER VALID FOR PROSECUTION UNDER SECTION 5 (2), PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION ACT.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant, a Patwari, was accused of accepting a bribe of Rs. 100 from the complainant in order to cancel his name from the revenue papers. The appellant was charged under Section 5 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, and sentenced to two years' rigorous imprisonment. The appellant challenged the validity of the sanction for prosecution, arguing that it was not a valid sanction for the offence under Section 5 (2) of the Act, as it was granted for prosecution under Section 161 of the Penal Code.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the sanction for prosecution under Section 161 of the Penal Code was not valid for prosecution under Section 5 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, as the two offenses are distinct and the latter is a graver offense. The court further held that the sanction for prosecution under Section 161 of the Penal Code could not be used to convict the appellant of the minor offense under Section 161 of the Penal Code, as the trial itself was vitiated due to the absence of a proper sanction for prosecution under Section 5 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act.
Issues: 1. Whether the sanction for prosecution under Section 161 of the Penal Code was valid for prosecution under Section 5 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act? 2. Whether the appellant could be convicted of the minor offense under Section 161 of the Penal Code, despite the absence of a proper sanction for prosecution under Section 5 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the sanction for prosecution under Section 161 of the Penal Code was not valid for prosecution under Section 5 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, as the two offenses are distinct and the latter is a graver offense. The court reasoned that Section 5 (1) of the Act defines four distinct offenses, only one of which (clause (a)) deals with habitual acceptance of illegal gratification, which is the offense covered by Section 161 of the Penal Code. The other three clauses of Section 5 (1) deal with different offenses, which may or may not fall under Section 161 of the Penal Code. 2. The court held that the appellant could not be convicted of the minor offense under Section 161 of the Penal Code, despite the absence of a proper sanction for prosecution under Section 5 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, as the trial itself was vitiated due to the absence of a proper sanction. The court reasoned that Section 238 of the Criminal Procedure Code, which allows for conviction of a minor offense when the facts proved reduce the offense to a minor one, applies only when the trial of the accused for the major offense was valid in law. In the present case, the trial was vitiated due to the absence of a proper sanction, and therefore, the court could not exercise its discretion under Section 238 to alter the conviction.
Final Decision: The court allowed the appeal, quashed the conviction of the appellant, and set aside the proceedings of the lower courts. The court also directed that the appellant could be prosecuted again after obtaining a proper sanction.
( 1 ) THIS is an appeal by Brahm Sarup Patwari against his conviction under Section 5 (2), prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, and sentence of two years R. I.
( 2 ) THE appellant was a Patwari of village Najabatpura Pargana Paranagar, district Baijnor. In the aforesaid village there is a hamlet, Ganj, where a grove formerly owned by Swami Krishna Nand is situated. In January 1949 Swami Krishna Nand transferred a half-share in the grove to Yati vishokha Nand complainant by means of a deed of gift, and in respect of the other half, he made a bequest in favour of the donee. Subsequently, in August 1940 Swami Krishna Nand executed a deed of gift in respect of the entire grove in favour of Nagamagum Vidyalaya, Ganj. The person in charge of the Vidyalaya, Swami Kawela Nand, made two applications for mutation in respect of the grove. Yati Vishokha Nand did not object to the mutation in respect of that half about which there was only a bequest in his favour, but he objected to the mutation in respect of the other half which he had obtained under the deed of gift. This objection was made on 13-8-1949 and 20-8-1949 was fixed for hearing.
( 3 ) THE prosecution case was that two days earlier than the date fixed in the case, the appellant brahma Sarup Patwari met the complainant and informed him that Swami Kawela Nand was offering him Rs. 1,500 to obtain from him a cancellation of Yati Vishokha Nands name from the revenue papers and that if the complainant paid him more he would not cancel his name. The complainant said that he would think over the matter. The appellant told the complainant that he would meet him at Ganj in the evening the next day. The parties, however, could not meet in the evening of 19th August. The appellant then went to the complainants place on the 20th of august in the morning and it was settled that they would again meet in the Tahsil compound the same day. In the Tahsil compound, the appellant told the complainant, that there were a number of witnesses against him and that unless the complainant paid Rs. 100 at least that very day he would file his extract from the khewat against him. The complainant went to his counsel for consultation. On the way the complainant met one Kr. Aditya Vir Singh, his friend, and told him about the patwaris demand. Kr. Aditya Vir Singh took the complainant to the S. P. Bijnor who took them to the S. D. M. Bijnor, Sri Raghunandan Sarup Bhatnagar. The latter signed ten currency notes of Rs. 10 each in the presence of the S. P. and told the complainant to offer the same to the appellant. The complainant took the ten currency notes to the Tahsil compound and called the appellant outside the building and offered the ten currency notes to him. The appellant did not accept the currency notes there, and suggested that they should be offered to him at his house. The complainant and Kr. Aditya Vir Singh went to the Kotwali and informed the S. P. and the S. D. M. Bijnor of what had happened. Then the complainant and Kr. Aditya Vir Singh went to the house of the appellant and after having ascertained that the appellant was already inside the house, Kr. Aditya Vir Singh returned to take the S. P. and the S. D. M. to that place. The S. P. and the S. D. M. came to the residence of the Patwari, but remained outside at a short distance. The complainant went inside the house and offered the currency notes to the appellant in a room whose outer door was open. The appellant took the currency notes and placed them inside one of his settlement volumes kept in an open almirah. Kr. Aditya Vir Singh was also standing outside the door with his cycle and noticed the complainant offering the currency notes to the appellant. As soon as the currency notes had been delivered, the S. P. and the S. D. M. came inside the house and the S. D. M. searched the person of the appellant but the currency notes could not be found, The complainant pointed towards the almirah. On search of the papers in the almirah
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
