D. G. T. D., Udyog Bhawan, New Delhi on 31 12 1966 demanded an illegal gratification of Rs.
1,000 as illegal gratification for entertaining those applications.
They were desirous of setting up projects for the manufacture of electronic and radio companyponents.
He reached that office on December 31, 1966 after 4 p. m. and presented his applications to the appellant who was working as Assistant in Co ordination III of the DGTD at Udyog Bhawan, New Delhi, the appellants duty being to attach pro formas to applications and send them on to the Electrical Directorate after obtaining the signatures of the Section Officer, Co ordination Branch.
And whereas the said acts of Shri R. J. Singh Ahluwalia companystitute offences under Section 161, I.P.C. and Section 5 2 of Prevention of Corruption Act r w Section 5 1 d of Prevention of Corruption Act II of 1947.
Shri Bawa also gave to the appellant his telephone number.
The facts necessary for appreciating the point raised briefly stated are these The Deputy Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Defence, Department of Defence Supplies issued a circular in which it was emphasised that the applications from the entrepreneurs for the additional quota of electronic equipment must be submitted at the latest by December 31, 1966.
ORDER Whereas it is alleged that Shri R. J. Singh Ahluwalia, while working as a public servant in the capacity of Assistant in Co ordination Section CDIII .
The sanction Ex.
1,000/ by way of illegal gratification and whereas Shri R. J. Singh Ahluwalia visited Shri A. S. Bawa in his office at Marshall House, Hanuman Road on 2 1 67 at about 5.30 p. m. and obtain ed Rs.
Ltd., Marshall House, Hanuman Road, New Delhi for showing him favour in the acceptance of his own application No.
2,000 under Section 5 2 read with Section 5 1 d of the Prevention of Corruption Act and three years rigorous imprisonment under Section 161, I.P.C. Both the sentences were, however, to run companycurrently.
1,000/ by way of illegal gratification from the said Shri Bawa, as a motive or reward for having registered the above mentioned two applications for necessary action.
By order and in the name of the President.
The appellant demanded Rs.
2 D/67 V Government of India Ministry of Industrial Development Company Affairs Department of Industrial Develop ment New Delhi, the 25th August, 1967.
And whereas I, after fully and carefully examining the material before me in regard to the abovementioned facts and the circumstances of the case companysider that the said Shri R. J. Singh Ahluwalia should be prosecuted in the companyrt of law for the said offences.
1,000 in currency numberes.
PL which1 has been held to be valid by the High Court was signed by Shri K. Raja Ram, Deputy Secretary to the Government of India and was granted on August 25, 1967 by the Ministry of Industrial Development and Company Affairs Department of Industrial Development .
It was number disputed that the appellant was remove able by the President of India.
DSB/2682/66 of the firm of his father M s. D. S. Bawa Co for setting up projects for the manufacture of Electronic and Radio Components And whereas it is alleged that in pursuance of this demand the said Shri R. J. Singh Ahluwalia, Assistant, phoned to Shri Bawa at about 12 15 p. m. at his office on 2 1 67 and repeated his demand of Rs.
NIP/2681/66 as well as application No.
In the meantime Shri Bawa approached the Special Police Establishment and informed Shri V. N. Nogi, Deputy Superintendent of Police about the appellants demand of bribe.
The appellant was as a result challaned under Section 5 2 of the Prevention of Corruption Act and under Section 161, I.P.C. The Special Judge trying the appellant companyvicted him under both the sections and imposed a sentence of rigorous imprisonment for four years and fine of Rs.
1,000/ from Shri A. S. Bawa, Director, Northern India Plywood Pvt.
Shri Anand Singh Bawa, Director of the Northern India Plywood P Ltd., Marshall House, Hanuman Road, New Delhi went to the Co ordination Department of DGTD, Udyog Bhawan, New Delhi for the purpose of submitting two applications one in his own name and the other in the name of his father.
Appeal to the High Court was dismissed by a learned single Judge In the High Court challenge to the validity of the sanction was based on the invalidity of its authentication.
A trap was then organised and pursuant thereto the appellant was caught soon after receiving Rs.
In the High Court also this was the only question canvassed on behalf of the appellant.
D. Dua, J. The sole point requiring determination by this Court in this appeal by special leave is whether the appellants prosecution was sanctioned by the companypetent authority.
Sd K. Raja Ram 25/8/67 K. Raja Ram Deputy Secretary to the Government of India.
Now, therefore, I being the authority companypetent to remove the said R. J. Singh Ahluwalia from office do hereby accord sanction Under Section 6 1 c of the Prevention of Corruption Act for the prosecution of the said Shri R. J. Singh Ahluwalia for the said offence and any other offences punishable under other provisions of law in respect of the acts aforesaid and for the taking of companynisance of the said offences by a companyrt of companypetent jurisdiction.
This new point sought to attack the sanction on two fold ground.
Shri Anand Singh Bawa told the appellant that he had numbermoney with him at that time and that the appellants should companytact him on Monday the 2nd January, 1967 to companylect the amount.
