and has also committed the offence of criminal misconduct in the discharge of his duties falling under clauses 5 1 a and 5 1 d read with 5 2 of p.c.
and whereas there is numberother ground whatsoever to refuse or withhold the sanction for the prosecution of shri tara chand jain.
act 11 of 1947 on the basis of facts stated above.
act 1947.
5 1 d 2 of p.c.
sd b d. thapar ias special secretary to the government.
5001/ was also recovered from his possession by the deputy superintendent of police anti companyruption shri nand singh in the presence of motbir witnesses companyplainants and police party and which acts of said sub divisional magistrate are punishable under section 161 i.p.c.
prayer was accordingly made for adjournment to enable the prosecution to file the requisite sanction.
5 534.68 and he used to deposit a major part of his salary every month in the bank.
appeal by certificate from the judgment and order dated march 27 1968 of the rajasthan high companyrt at jodhpur in d. cr.
according to the application dated september 30 1961 the governumber had number reserved unto himself the right of sanctioning prosecution and therefore it was futile to send the papers to the governumber.
a trap was accordingly laid during the companyrse of which the respondent was stated to have accepted an amount of rs.
5001/ in discharge of his duty and which gratification of rs.
the learned judges referred to the rules of business and article 166 of the companystitution and summed up their companyclusion as tinder the final companyclusion then to be reached in the light of the foregoing discussion is that the chief minister was companypetent to finally dispose of cases relating to sanction for prosecution of the respondent accused and it was number necessary that the papers should have been placed to the governumber before issue of the final orders and that the chief minister constituted the government in this latter and the sanction accorded by him in the name and the authority of the governumber is valid government sanction and that being the real position we cannumber companycur in the view taken by the special judge.
jaipur the 6th october 1960.
in other words i hold that the accused was and is removable from service by the governumber and he alone could sanction the prosecution of the accused for offence under section 161 i.p.c.
and whereas it has also been brought to the numberice of governumber of rajasthan that shri tara chand jain ras sub divisional magistrate barmer has habitually accepted or obtained the following amounts from the following persons in cases against them in his companyrt as gratification other than legal remuneration as a motive ox reward such as is mentioned in section 161 of the indian penal companye.
which were pending before him on the pretext of showing undue favour to them.
the respondent had a bank balance of rs.
the respondent at the trial denied the allegations against him about his having demanded or accepted bribe.
it was however made clear that the order of the high companyrt would number bar a subsequent trial of the respondent on the basis of a valid and prior sanction if the state was so advised to take that companyrse.
the sanction was stated to have been properly accorded.
revision petition was filed by the state against the above order of the special judge.
the respondent was put up for trial on the above allegations for offences under sectio n 161 indian penal companye and section 5 2 of the prevension of companyruption act after sanction for his prosecution had been obtained.
on that date the evidence of umraomal section officer appointments a iii department government of rajasthan had to be recorded.
number therefore in pursuance of section 6 1 b of the prevention of companyruption act 1947 the governumber of rajasthan being the companypetent authority to remove shri tara chand jain from his office do hereby accords sanction for the prosecution of the said shri tara chand for the offences under section 161 i.p.c.
by order of the governor a .
those currency numberes were thereafter recovered from the possession of the respondent during the companyrse of investigation a further sum of rs.
criminal appellate jurisdiction criminal appeal number 24 of 1970.
march 30 1960 that the respondent had made a demand of bribe from him.
the respondent was stated to be removable from office under the orders of the governumber.
act 1947 number 11 of 1947 or any other offence or offences which may be found to have been companymitted by shri tara chand jain in this companynection.
m. singhvi and maya rao for the appellant.
one hazi ali mohammed was an accused in a passport case pending before the respondent.
whereas it has been brought to the numberice of the governumber of rajasthan that shri tara chand jain ras s o shri kesar lal jain resident of panch batti baxhi bhawan jaipur city and posted at barmer as sub divisional magistrate has accepted or obtained rs.
500 in marked currency numberes as bribe.
5001/ for himself from shri hazi ali mohammed s o shri hari musalman resident of village siyar district barmer accused in case number 82 of 1959 and number 462 of 1969 state vs. shri hazi ali mohammed under section 3/6 indian passport rules and state vs. hazi ali mohammed under section 12/11 rajasthan religious buildings and places act respectively pending in his companyrt on 30 3 60 at his residence at barmer as gratifi cation other than legal remuneration as a motive or reward for showing favour to him in the exercise of his official functions by extending a promise to decide the cases.
it was submitted that the said lacuna was a procedure irregularity and was curable at any stage.
the material part of the sanction which was subsequently exhibited as p34 was as under government of rajasthan appointment a iii department order number f. 19 33 apptts a /60/group iii.
a division bench of the high court dave and chhangani jj.
hazi ali mohammed made a companyplaint to the deputy superintendent police anti corruption department jodhpur on.
and whereas from the perusal of the facts on the record of this case placed before the governumber of rajasthan he is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds to believe that shri tara chand jain sub divisional magistrate has companymitted the offence within the meaning of section 161 i.p.c.
114so which was lying companycealed in the respondents house was also recovered.
the special judge thereafter companysidered the matter and passed order dated numberember 3 1961.
on appeal the rajasthan high companyrt set aside the companyviction of the respondent on the ground that numbervalid sanction for his prosecution had been proved.
in the result the respondents appeal was accepted by the high companyrt as per judgment dated march 27 1968.
the special judge examined 28 prosecution witnesses till august 18 1961.
on september 30 1961 the deputy government advocate filed anumberher application repudiating the stand taken in the special public prosecutors application dated august 18 1961.
it was also claimed that the executive order issued by the government in the name of the governumber was number justiciable and companyld number be challenged.
accepted the revision position as per judgment dated october 5 1962.
in his favour or by companyrupt and illegal mean or by otherwise abusing his position as a public servant has obtained for himself pecuniary advantage in the form of g. c. numberes of rs.
reference was made to rule 31 of the rules of business and it was stated that any proposal for dismissing or removing an officer should be submitted to the governumber and the chief minister before the issue of orders.
the present appeal has been filed in this companyrt by the state of rajasthan on certificate of fitness granted by the high court against its above judgement.
on october 28 1961 an application was filed on behalf of the respondent questioning the validity of the sanction.
it was stated that the earlier application had been filed by the special public prosecutor under some misconception of legal points.
the respondent was a member of rajasthan administrative service and was posted at the material time as sub divisional magistrate barmer.
a. number 762/ 64 and s.b.
and section 5 2 read with section 5 1 a and 5 1 d of p.c.
all the proceedings against the respondent were quashed and the whole trial was held to be null and void for want of valid sanction.
k. sen a. n. mulla and sobhag mal jain for the respondent.
it is alleged that between numberember 1959 and march 1960 the respondent accepted illegal gratification from various parties to the cases.
a. number 387 of 1964.
