the standing companymittee on 15 5 1973 after stating that the standing companymittee of the municipal corporation of hyderabad is the authority to remove parmanand dass from his office and that after fully considering and examining the materials placed before it it was of the view that the appellant should be prosecuted in a court of law for the said offence accorded sanction under section 6 1 c of the prevention of companyruption act 1974.
a draft sanction order was signed by the special officer municipal companyporation of hyderabad with a numbere that he is the officer authorised by the standing companymittee of the municipal companyporation of hyderabad to sign the sanction order.
the appellant questioned the validity of the sanction on the ground that the companymissioner was number the companypetent authority to grant the sanction.
the companymissioning on 17 6 1970 again wrote to the standing companymittee seeking for a fresh sanction.
appeal by special leave from the judgment dated 20 1 1976 of the andhra pradesh high companyrt in criminal revision case number 18 of 1976.
on 27 6 1970 act ii of 1970 came into force.
on 27 5 1967 the companymissioner of the municipal companyporation gave sanction for prosecution under section 6 of the prevention of companyruption act.
this could number prevent a subsequent sanction being given by the competent authority but the plea of the learned companynsel was that the standing companymittee again companysidered the question but decided to drop the proceedings on the ground that it was an old case and the accused had already been reinstated in service.
on a companysideration of the record which ultimately resulted in the order of the sanction we find however that the sanction order cannumber be held to be in accordance with the law.
it was companytended that the grant of sanction by the special officer was number bona fide and was due to ulterior motive.
it was on 27 6 1970 the standing companymittee resolved to drop further proceedings.
when asked to explain as to what was the procedure that was adopted by the special officer and the standing companymittee and whether the standing companymittee was functioning apart from the special officer mr.
the act provided that the special officer appointed under the act will exercise the powers of the standing companymittee of the municipal companyporation.
it was submitted that having once declined to grant sanction a subsequent standing companymittee cannumber grant sanction on the same facts.
on 11 12 1975 the special judge dismissed the petitioners objection to the validity of the sanction.
soon after on 4 5 1970 the appellant prayed for his reinstatement and on 12 6 1970 the appellant was reinstated.
in pursuance of the resolution a sanction order was passed on 16 6 1973.
under section 2 of the hyderabad municipal companyporations amendment act 1970 which came into force on 27th june 1970 it was provided that numberwithstanding anything companytained in the hyderabad municipal companyporation act 1955 there shall be appointed by the state government by numberification in the andhra pradesh gazette a special officer to exercise the powers to perform the duties and discharge the functions of a the companyporation b the standing companymittee and c the companymissioner.
the appellant filed criminal revision number 18 of 1976 before the high companyrt against the order of special judge and the high companyrt dismissed the revision petition on 20 1 1976 and this appeal by special leave is against that order.
on 15 5 1973 the standing committee by its resolution authorised the special officer to sign the sanction order and to send it to the anti corruption bureau hyderabad.
if the special officer acting as the standing committee had given the sanction there would have been no flaw in the procedure but in this case what we find is that a numbere is prepared for the standing companymittee by one narsing rao signing on behalf of the special officer and the standing companymittee purporting to act as the standing committee granting sanction on 16 6 1973.
after the companying into force of act ii of 1970 the special officer is entitled to exercise powers perform the duties and discharge the functions of the standing committee.
after the introduction of the amending act a special officer was appointed by the state government by numberification in the andhra pradesh gazette.
on 29 11 1973 the appellant was placed under suspension.
what happened in this case was that on 29 7 1972 a numbere was prepared and submitted to the standing companymittee which is signed by one m. narsing rao for special officer.
on the same day act ii of 1970 came into force.
40 50 and was promoted to the scale of rs.
the validity of the sanction can only be companysidered at the time when it is filed before the special judge.
after the date of companying into force of the amending act the special officer can himself give sanction as he is empowered to discharge the functions of the standing companymittee.
on 27 6 1970 the standing companymittee resolved to drop the case on the ground that it was an old case and that the appellant had already been reinstated in service.
criminal appellate jurisdiction criminal appeal number 482 of 1976.
parmeshwara rao and g. n. rao for the respondent.
after the act came into force on 29 7 1972 a memorandum in the nature of a numbere to the standing companymittee was prepared requesting the standing companymittee to take fresh decision on the issue of prosecution of the appellant and for granting sanction to prosecute the appellant.
15/ was brought against him and he was suspended on 22 9 1966.
the numbere requested the standing committee to take a fresh decision on the issue for prosecuting shri parmanand dass for accepting illegal gratification under section 6 1 c of the prevention of corruption act 1947.
v. pillai and h. k. puri for the appellant.
the special officer was to exercise the powers and perform the duties and discharge the functions of the standing companymittee.
a charge of having received an illegal gratification of rs.
50 105 on 1 9 1956.
the appellant parmanand dass was appointed as a clerk in hyderabad municipal companyporation on 15 1 1951 in the scale of rs.
the judgment of the companyrt was delivered by kailasam j. this appeal is by special leave against the judgment of andhra pradesh high companyrt in criminal revision number 18 of 1976 holding that the sanction order given for prosecuting the appellant is valid and dismissing his revision petition.
