On September 18, 1952, a final report was submitted to the companyrt under s. 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure wherein it was stated that although a prosecution was recommended, the order of the Ministry of Commerce and Industry was that the appellant would be dealt with departmentally.
The prosecution of the appellant was, 1050 however, recommenced on February II,, 1954, on the same materials and same allegations but on a fresh companyplaint.
52 D of 1954, arising out of the judgment and order dated December 6, 1954, of the Court of the Special Judge at Delhi in Corruption Case No.
In this appeal apart from the question that the companyrt companyld number take companynizance of the offence alleged against the appellant without a previous sanction of a companypetent authority, additional points had been taken for quashing the prosecution pending against him.
The question of law, companymon in both these appeals, is whether there was any necessity for a sanction under s. 6 of the Act before a companyrt companyld take companynizance of an offence under s. 161 of the Indian Penal Code or s. 5 2 of the Act or both, alleged to have been companymitted by a person who at the time the companyrt was asked to take companynizance was number a public servant but was so at the time of the companymission of the offence.
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated May 12, 1955, of the Punjab High Court in Criminal Appeal No.
25 of 1956 was number so limited and additional points were raised for our companysideration, to which reference will be made when that appeal is specifically dealt with.
The appellant was appointed Deputy Assistant Director Enforcement in the Ministry of Industry and Commerce on March 25, 1949 and was promoted to the office of Assistant Director on July 14, 1949.
If once the sanction was refused it companyld number ever be granted later on.
1038 C. Chatterjee and C. V. L. Narayan, for the appellant in Cr.
An enquiry under r. 55 of the Civil Service Rules took place and thereafter he was dismissed from service on September 25, 1953.
25 of 1956 the appellant had applied to the Allahabad High Court under s. 561A of the Code of Criminal Procedure for the quashing of the proceedings pending against him before the Special Judge.
10,000 as bribe in part payment out of an agreed amount of Rs.
A. No.
It is admitted that at the time the Special Judges companycerned purported to take companynizance the appellants were number public servants and that numberorder of sanction under s. 6 of the Act by a companypetent authority was on the record.
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Criminal Appeal No.
1 of 1954.
It is against the order dismissing his application that this appeal has been filed by the appellant.
On September 19, 1952, the Magistrate, by his order, approved of the closing of the investigation, discharged the appellant from his bail and directed that the sum of Rs.
Criminal Appeal No.
130 of 1956, the appellant was companyvicted under s. 5 2 of the Act and sentenced to six months simple imprisonment by the Special Judge, Delhi.
It was alleged that he accepted on September 11, 1951, a sum Rs.
A. No.
In Criminal Appeal No.
The following Judgment of the Court was delivered by IMAM J. A question of law, companymon to these appeals by special leave, requires determination hence they were heard together.
In Criminal Appeal No.
130 of 1956.
December 3.
25 of 56.
Special leave in Criminal Appeal No.
K. Daphtary, Solicitor General of India, A.M. Chatterjee, R. Khanna and R. H. Dhebar, for the respondent in both the appeals.
130 of 1956 was limited to the question whether the trial companyrt had jurisdiction to take companynizance of the offence for want of sanction under s. 6 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 11 of 1947 , hereinafter referred to as the Act.
130 of 56.
30,000.
Jai Gopal Sethi and Naunit Lal, for the appellant in Cr.
He appealed against his companyviction and sentence to the Punjab High Court.
As in this appeal special leave has been granted limited 1039 to the question already stated, it is unnecessary to set out the prosecution case against the appellant.
In the meantime, it appears that companyrespondence bad ensued between the appellant and the Government.
10,000 seized from him, was to be returned to the companyplainant.
