RAGHUBAR DAYAL, J.

( 1 ) THIS is an application under Section 561a read with Section 435, Criminal P. C. for the setting aside of the charge and the entire proceedings in Sessions Trial No. 77 of 1950 and the convictions and sentences in Sessions Trials NOS. 76 and 78 of 1950.

( 2 ) THE applicant was prosecuted for offences under Sections 409, 420, 465, 468, 471 and 477a, penal Code, in three cases. He was duly committed in all the three cases. Two of these cases ended in his conviction under Section 467 read with Section 471 and Section 420, Penal Code. The applicant filed appeals against his convictions and sentences before the Sessions Judge of gorakhpur. His appeals are pending. The third caae is pending in the Sessions Court.

( 3 ) THE ground for the prayer for action under Section 561a is that the Court could not have taken cognizance of the offences in the absence of sanction as required by Section 6, Prevention of corruption Act (Act II [2] of 1947) It is admitted that the applicant has not been prosecuted for any offence to which that Act applies and for which sanction is necessary. The contention seems to be that the conduct could have amounted to an offence to be dealt with under that Act, that he should have been prosecuted for that offence and that such prosecution could not have been launched without sanction.

( 4 ) SO far as the two appeals against his convictions and sentences are concerned, I am of opinion that no good reason exists to take action under Section 561a, Criminal P. C. The appellate Court will deal with the legal question and decide it according to law. The conviction is not to be set aside under Section 561a, Criminal P. C. and can be set aside according to the regular procedure.

( 5 ) IT has been held in Kripa Shankar v. State, Cri Misc. No 506 of 1951, decided on 5-6-1951, by brij Mohan Lall J. that prosecution under Section 409, Penal-Code could nob be allowed against a person who could also be prosecuted for criminal misconduct under Section 5 of Act II [2] of 1947, the Prevention of Corruption Act, without the sanction contemplated by Section 6 of the act. I find it difficult to follow this view and would like the point to be considered by a larger bench,

( 6 ) I, therefore, reject this application with respect to the prayer for the setting aside of the convictions and sentences in the two cases and order that this application with respect to the prayer for the setting aside of the charge in Sessions Trial No. 77 of 1950 be laid before a larger bench. Malik, C. J.

( 7 ) THE applicant Bhup Narain Saxena was an Inspector in the Rural Development Department and was posted in Agra. In the year 1945 he was transferred to Deoria. On 3-12-1948, he was transferred from Deoria to Jaunpur. While he was in Jaunpur he was arrested on 6-1-1949, and on 25-5-1949, three charge-sheets were submitted against him, On 15-7-1950, the Magistrate, who had taken cognizance of the case, framed charges against the applicant under various sections of the Indian Penal Code. In two of the case, the applicant was convicted and he baa filed appeals against his convictions which are pending in the Court of the learned Sessions judge, The prayer that this Court should under Section 561a, Criminal P. C. , set aside the conviction was refused by the learned single Judge when referring this case to this Bench with the following observations : "the appellate Court will deal with the legal question and decide it according to law. The conviction is not to be set aside under Section 561a, Criminal P. C. , and can be set aside according to the regular procedure. " the third case is still pending. An objection has been taken in this ease that the prosecution cannot proceed against the applicant as no sanction of the District Co-operative Officer, Jaunpur, was taken to prosecute the applicant as required by Section 6, Prevention cf Corruption Act (II [2] of 1947 ). A learned single Judge of this Court had in Kripa Shankar v. State,

Click Here to Read the rest of this document