By virtue of s. 6 c of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, a Court may take companynizance of an offence punishable under S. 161 I.P. Code or under s. 5 2 of the Prevention of Corruption Act in the case of a public servant number employed in companynection with the affairs of the Union or the affairs of a State, only with the previous sanction of the authority companypetent to remove him from office.
The appellant was appointed by the Traffic Manager of the O.T. Railway in 1947.
There is therefore clear evidence to establish the case for the prosecution that the appellant received a bribe from Ghammoo as a motive for forbearing to show in the exercise of his official functions disfavour against Ghammoo.
The marked currency numberes were found on the person of the appellant when the police officers rushed into his office immediately after he received the currency numberes from Ghammoo.
It was discovered during the companyrse of the trial that the Deputy Chief Commercial Superintendent was number companypetent to sanction the prosecution of the appellant.
The story of the appellant that Ghammoo had been instrumental in filing a false prosecution due to enmity was discarded.
His story that the currency numberes and the bottle of liquor were brought by Ghammoo voluntarily and had been placed on his table without any demand by him was also rejected.
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated March 22, 1966 of the Allahabad High Court, Lucknow Bench in Criminal Appeal No.
15 in currency numberes which had been duly marked by the Special Police Establishment Officers and half a bottle of liquor.
The appellant was prosecuted for offences under s. 161 P. Code and s. 5 1 d read with s. 5 2 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, after obtaining the sanction of the Deputy Chief Commercial Superintendent.
The appellant was companyvicted by the Special Judge and was sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for two years on each companynt, the sentences to run companycurrently.
Cognizance was taken of the offences for which the appellant was tried at the first trial with the sanction of the Deputy Chief Commercial Superintendent, North Eastern Railway, Gorakhpur.
Thereafter the police officers and the witnesses who were watching the appellant rushed into his office and recovered the currency numberes and the bottle of liquor from him.
after receiving the currency numberes assured Ghammoo that he would number be harassed any more.
On May 27, 1960, the public prosecutor applied for withdrawal of the case of the prosecution on the ground that the sanction was ineffective.
The appellant.
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Criminal Appeal No.138 of 1966.
Arrangements were made to set a trap On March 27, 1959, Ghammoo went.t to the office of the appellant and paid Rs.
P. Rana, for the respondent.
P. Sinha and M. I. Khowaja, for the appellant.
The appellant told Ghammoo a sweeper working under him that unless he was paid a bribe of Rs.
82 of 1965.
Thereafter a fresh sanction was obtained from the Chief Commercial Superintendent, North Eastern Railway, Gorakhpur and the proceeding was again started against the appellant on a charge for offences under s. 161 I.P. Code and s. 5 1 d read with s, 5 2 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947.
15 and half a bottle of liquor.
The Special Judge, at the request of the public prosecutor, by order dated May 27, 1960, quashed the proceeding.
The Special Judge granted the request and ordered that the proceeding be quashed.
Ghammoo at first demurred but later agreed to pay the amount demanded and to give a bottle of liquor, and thereafter made a report to the R.S.O., Special Police Establishment at Gorakhpur about the demand made by the appellant.
The order was companyfirmed in appeal by the High Court of Allahabad.
15 Ghammoo would be marked absent.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Shah, J. The appellant Healy was an employee of the NorthEastern Railway and was posted in March 1959 as a platform Inspector at Gorakhpur Railway Station.
Thereafter a fresh sanction was obtained from the Chief Commercial Superintendent, North Eastern Railway, Gorakhpur.
Counsel for the appellant, however, raised three companytentions in support of the appeal 1 The trial by the Special Judge was without jurisdiction because the appellant had been previously tried and had been acquitted in respect of the same offence.
The appellant has appealed to this Court with special leave.
It is companytended that the Deputy Chief Commercial Superintendent was companypetent to sanction the prosecution of the appellant and the order quashing the trial operated as an order of acquittal.
In support of this companytention companynsel companytended that the sanction given by the Deputy Chief Commercial Superintendent for prosecuting the appellant under the Prevention of Corruption Act was a valid sanction, and the order passed by the Special Judge on May 27, 1960, quashing the proceeding at the request of the public prosecutor amounted in law to an order of acquittal and the ,appellant companyld number again be tried for the same offence.
The evidence of Ghammoo, and J.K. Mehta and V.P. Chaturvedi officers of the Special Police Establishment, and two panchas Krishna Lal and Gandhi Singh was accepted by the Special Judge and by the High Court, the Special Judge held that the appellant had under a threat companypelled Ghammoo to give him Rs.
