The argument raised by the appellant in this companyrt is that as the sanction was companyfined to illegal gratification of Rs.
50 from Pal Singh on March 19, 1953, at Subzi Mandi, Amritsar.
50 paid by Pal Singh and the charge was for habitually accepting illegal gratification the trial was without jurisdiction and the appellant companyld number be companyvicted even for the offence which was mentioned in the sanction.
10 situate at village Fatehpur Rajputan and thereby companymitted an offence of Criminal misconduct in the discharge of your duty mentioned in section 5 1 a of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, punishable under sub section 2 of section 5 of the aforesaid Act and within my companynizance.
540 of 1953, arising out of the judgment and order dated the 14th September, 1953, of the Court of Special Judge, Amritsar, in Corruption Case No.
The Special Judge found that the appellant had accepted illegal gratification from Pal Singh, Hazara Singh, Harnam Singh, Joginder Singh, Atma Singh, Hari Singh and Ganda Singh and that he had received Rs.
A. with your recommendation for helping Santa Singh father of Pal Singh in the allotment of Ahata No.
10 denomination each from one Pal Singh son of S. Santa Singh of village Fatehpur Rajputan, Tehsil Amritsar for making a favorable report on an application for allotment of an ahata to S. Santa Singh father of the said S. Pal Singh.
Appeal from the judgment and order dated the 31st December, 1953 of the Punjab High Court in Criminal Appeal No.
The sanction was in the following terms Whereas I am satisfied that Jaswant Singh Patwari son of Gurdial Singh Kamboh of village Ajaibwali had accepted an illegal gratification of Rs.
50 on 19 3 1953 at Subzi Mandi Amritsar from Pal Singh P. W. as a reward for forwarding the application Es.
Gopal Singh and T. M. Sen, for the respondent.
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Criminal Appeal No.
66 of 1954.
The companyviction was therefore upheld but the sentence was reduced to the period already undergone and the sentence of fine maintained.
The appellant was prosecuted for receiving illegal gratification and the charge against him was in the following terms That, you, Jaswant Singh, while employed as a Patwari, Fatehpur Rajputan habitually accepted or obtained for yourself illegal gratification and that you received in the sum of Rs.
Shaukat Hussain, for the appellant.
13/1 10/3 of 1953.
The following judgment of the Court was delivered by KAPUR J. The sole point in this appeal against the judgment and order of the Punjab High Court pronounced on December 31, 1953, is the validity and effect of the sanction given under s. 6 1 of the Prevention of Corruption Act Act 2 of 1947 , hereinafter termed the Act.
October 25.
50 in 5 currency numberes of Rs.
But he held that sanction was valid qua the charge of accepting illegal gratification of Rs.
50 from Pal Singh.
The appellant took an appeal to the High Court of the Punjab and Dulat J. held that taking into companysideration the sanction which will be quoted hereinafter The appellant companyld neither have been charged number companyvicted of what is probably a much graver offence of habitually accepting bribes.
