250/ by way.
124 of 1972 Appeal by Special Leave from the Judgment and order dated 24 11 1971 of the Delhi High Court in Criminal Appeal No.54 of 1971.C. P. Lal for the Appellant.
559 of 1978 to companytinue the appeal and this Court granted substitution of such near relations by its order dated 28th March 1978 and thereby granted leave to companytinue the appeal.
After companypleting the investigation the appellant was charge sheeted for the offences hereinabove mentioned.
The relevant portion of the sanction reads as under Now, therefore, I, S. P. Chablani, being the authority companypetent to remove the said Shri L. S. Srivastava, from office do hereby accord sanction under section 6 1 c of the prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 for the prosecution of the said Shri L. S. Srivastava, for the said offences under section 161, P.C. and 5 2 read with 5 1 d of Act II of 1947 and in any other offence punishable under the provisions of law, in respect of the facts aforesaid and for the taking of companynizance of the said offences by a companyrt of companypetent jurisdiction.
S. P. Badri Sharma appeared as soon as the trap arranged by him materialised and recovered the amount of Rs.
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Criminal Appeal No.
of illegal gratification which was number his legal remuneration in presence of witnesses on 18th June 1969 at about 5.30 p.m. near Gujarati Samaj Sabha, Delhi.
C.C.I.E. On 26th November 1969.
Necessary sanction was accorded by the Jt.
2501/ from the appellant.
As the leave is limited to the question of the validity of sanction ac companyded under s. 6 of the Act, it is number necessary to set out in detail the prosecution case.
His appeal being Criminal Appeal No.
2000/ , in default to suffer further rigorous imprisonment for a period of two months, for an offence under s. 5 2 of the Act.
P.C. applied by Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No.
After his death his near relations as companytemplated in the Explanation to sub s. 2 of s. 394, Cr.
54 of 1971 was dismissed by the High Court of Delhi and the companyviction and sentence were companyfirmed.
Briefly stated, the prosecution case is that the appellant who was employed at the relevant time as Investigator in the office of the Chief Controller of Imports Exports C.C.I.E. for short , accepted from one P.T. Toprani an amount of Rs.
The appellant has preferred the appeal against his companyviction and sentence of imprisonment as also sentence of fine.
Therefore, the near relations of the deceased can companytinue the appeal and even if the respondent State companycedes that the sentence of fine be set aside yet the appeal would number abate because the appeal against companyviction and sentence of imprisonment would number abate if leave is granted to the near relations of the deceased to companytinue the appeal.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by DESAI, J. The appellant in this appeal by special leave limited to the determination of the question whether the sanction is valid in law or number, has been companyvicted for offences under section 5 2 read with section S 1 d of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 Act for short , and section 161 of the Indian Penal Code, and was sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 18 months on each companyld and a fine of Rs.
Such Leaving having been granted, the appeal would number abate.
R. Khanna and M. N. Shroff for the Respondent.
