Sanction under the Prevention of Corruption Act is not required for prosecution of a public servant for criminal breach of trust under section 409, Penal Code.

V R Sen, J—The judgment in this appeal by the State Government against respondent Bala Prasad Champuria will govern the disposal of Criminal Appeal No. 15 of 1952 against respondent A. N. Chabra.

2. Bala Prasad was the head clerk and Chabra was a clerk in the office of the Employment Exchange, Jabalpur, in the year 1949. The former also worked as accountant and cashier. Fazlul Rahman (P. W. 6) was employed as a typist in the same office in December 1948 and he worked there till September 1949. He went on leave on the 9th March 1949 and resumed his duties on the 13th April 1949. A sum of Rs. 31 on account of his pay for the period from 1st March 1949 to 9th March 1949 was said to have been disbursed on 1st April 1949. The relevant entry in the pay register Exhibit P-1 was duly stamped and contained an acknowledgment purporting to be of Fazlul Rahman.

3. The case of the prosecution was that the amount of Rs. 31 was not paid to Fazlul Rahman and that his signature on the pay register was forged by Chabra in conspiracy with Bala Prasad who made a false debit entry in the general cash book and the amount was misappropriated by both of them. They were prosecuted in the Court of Shri M. G. Sapre, Magistrate First Class, Jabalpur. Both of them were found guilty under section 120-B read with section 409, Penal Code. Bala Prasad was also found guilty under section 109 read with section 465 for having abetted respondent Chabra to forge the signature of Rahman, and under section 477-A, Penal Code, for having wilfully with intent to defraud made the entry. Chabra was further convicted under section 465, Penal Code. The sentences of imprisonment which were awarded were ordered to run concurrently. Both of them appealed and the Sessions Judge, Jabalpur, delivered the main judgment in the appeal of Bala Prasad. He allowed the appeals and set aside the convictions of the respondents on the ground that the entire proceedings were void.

4. The first point is whether the appeals are maintainable. The respondents have not been acquitted. The learned Sessions Judge had only set aside the convictions. He made the following observation in the concluding paragraph of his judgment: It is, however, open to the prosecution to launch fresh prosecution after obtaining due sanction under the correct provisions of law, if they so desire.

5. It is true that he found that the convictions of the respondents under section 465 and section 465 read with section 109, Penal Code, were liable to be set aside, but he did not actually acquit them of these charges. The learned Government Pleader and the learned counsel for the respondents agree that the appeals are not competent. We treat these appeals as revisions.

6. The view taken by the learned Sessions Judge is that the prosecution for the offence of criminal breach of trust should have been launched after obtaining previous sanction under section 6 of the Prevention of Corruption Act (hereafter called the Act). His observations are as follows: The General Act (reference is to the Penal Code) has to be read subject to the qualifications imposed by the Special Act (reference is to the Act). If this were not done, it would amount to circumventing the Special Act by allowing the launching of a prosecution for the same offence without obtaining previous sanction in that behalf as expressly provided by the Special Act.

7. He held that though no sanction was necessary In respect of the offences under sections 465 and 477-A, the entire proceeding was void for want of initial jurisdiction in the magistrate to take cognizance of the case.

8. The main question which requires consideration is whether the prosecution should have instituted proceedings against the respondents under section 5 (1) (c) of the Act. In our opinion, the provisions of the Act are applicable when the prosecution is under that Act. That Act does not repeal the provisions of section 409 so far as public servants are concerned. As long as the offence of