The sentences were directed to run companycurrently.
S. G. 2494 dated August 3, 1965 which amended the Government of India Allocation of Business Rules, 1961 by introducing entry 32A under the heading, Ministry of Home Affairs, which reads 32A. According of sanction for the prosecution of any person for any offence investigated into by the Delhi Special Police Establishment, where such sanction is required to be accorded by the Central Government.
The basis of both the submissions is an office memorandum dated October 6, 1948 to which reference was made also before the High Court.
In exercise of the powers companyferred by Article 77 3 of the Constitution of India the President made the Government of India Allocation of Business Rules, 1961 in supersession of all previous rules and orders on the subject.
Ultimately a charge sheet was filed against the respondent in the Court of the Special Judge for Rajasthan, Jaipur City, The Special Judge companyvicted him under Section 5 1 c read with Section 5 2 of the Prevention of Corruption Act and Section 471 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.
The appeal before us has been preferred by the State of Rajasthan questioning the companyrectness of the judgment of the High Court.
100/ , in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for further one month, on the first companynt and on the second to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rupees 100/ , in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for another one month.
Sanction for prosecution of the respondent was granted on September 17, 1964 by the Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India, signed by a Deputy Secretary by order and in the name of the President.
Note Sanction for the prosecution of any person for any offence number investigated into by the Delhi Special Police Establishment, shall be accorded by the Administrative Ministry, where such sanction is required to be accorded by the Central Government.
In the appeal preferred by the respondent from the decision of the Special Judge, the Rajasthan High Court held that the Ministry of Home Affairs was number the companypetent authority to sanction prosecution of the respondent, allowed the appeal and set aside the order of companyviction and the sentences passed on him.
In the impugned judgment the High Court refers to numberification No.
A criminal case was registered against him on December 31, 1962 which was investigated by the Special Police Establishment, Jaipur.
The High Court finds that prior to this amendment the companypetent authority to accord sanction for offences investigated by the Delhi Special Police Establishment was the Department of Personnel Karmik Vibhag , Cabinet Secretariat, where such sanction was required to be given by the Central Government, Even after the amendment, as entry 32A would show, sanction for prosecution of any person for any offence number investigated by the Delhi Special Police Establishment was to be accorded by the Administrative Ministry companycerned where such sanction was required to be accorded by the Central Government.
C. Gupta, J. The respondent was employed in 1961 as Officer in Charge, Desert and Gangetic Plains, Zoological Survey of India at Jodhpur.
As already stated the offences alleged to have been companymitted by the respondent were investigated by the Special Police Establishment, Jaipur.
