INDU BHUSAN CHATTERJEE versus THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL

Citation: [1958] 1 S.C.R. 1001 · Decided: 26-11-1957 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: BHUVNESHWAR PRASAD SINHA · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

S.C.R. 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
1001 
the Act, it is not necessary for us to go into the other 
1957 
points raised in the petition. We, therefore, direct Choudhury Dharam 
that a writ be issued as prayed for and the petitioner 
Singh Rathi 
be set at liberty forthwith. 
v. 
The State of 
Punjab 
Wrjt issued. 
Petitioner set at Hberty. 
INDU BHUSAN ·CHATTERJEE 
'V. 
THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL 
(B. P. SINHA, JAFER IMAM and J. L. KAPUR JJ.) 
Pu.bLic servant-Prosecution-Sanction-Essentials of a 
valid sanction-Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 (2 of 
1947), ss. 5 (2), 6-Indian Penal Code (Act 45 of 1860), 
s. 161. 
The appellant, a public servant, was convicted under 
s. 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1917, and under 
s. 161 of the Indian Penal Code on a charge of accepting 
a sum of Rs. 100 as illegal gratification. It was contended 
for the appellant that the conviction was bad on the ground 
that the sanction for his prosecution was not valid because 
the officer competent to sanction the prosecution (1) had 
not applied his mind to the facts and circumstances of the 
case but merely perused the draft prepared by the Police 
and (2) did not investigate the truth of the offence. The 
evidence, however, showed that he went through all ihe 
papers placed before him which gave him the necessary 
material upon which he decided that it was necessary in 
the ends of justice to accord his sanction ~ 
Held, that the essentials of a valid sanction were present 
in the case and that the conviction was valid. 
Goku.lchand Dwarkadas Morarka v. The King, (1948) 
L.R. 75 I.A. 30, referred to. 
CRIMINAL 
APPELLATE 
JURISDICTION: 
Criminal 
Appeal No. 18 of 1955. 
Appeal from the judgment and order dated Decem-
ber 1, 1954, of the Calcutta High Court in 'Criminal 
Appeal No. 322 of 1953, arising out of the judgment 
L!Sup. Court/61-8 
Das C.J. 
1957. 
November, 26. 
1957 
lndu Bhusa11 
Chatterjee 
v. 
.The State of 
West Bengal 
flnam J. 
1002 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1958J 
and order dated November 20, 1953, of the West. 
Bengal First Special Court at Alipore in Case No. 3 
of 1953. 
N. C. Chatterjee and D. N. Mukherjee, for the 
appellant. 
B. Sen arid P. K. Ghosh (for f'. K. Bose), for the 
respondent. 
1957. November 26. The following Judgment of 
the Court was delivered by 
IMAM J.-The High Court of Calcutta certified 
under Art. 134(l)(c) of the Constitution that the case· 
before us was a fit one for appeal to this Court. The 
ground for the granting of the certificate, as stated by 
the High Court, will be considered in due course. 
The appellant was convicted under s. 5(2) of the 
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 (II of 1947), here-
inafter referred to as the Act, and under s. 161 of the 
Indian Penal Code by a Special Judge who sentenced 
him under s. 161 to undergo rigorous imprisonment 
for three months and to pay a fine of Rs. 50'J in de-
fault to suffer further rigorous imprisonment for one 
month. No separate sentence was passed under s. 
5(2) of the Act. He unsuccessfully appealed to the 
High Court against his conviction and sentence. 
The charge framed against the appellant under 
s. 161 of the Indian Penal Code, in substance, stated. 
that on or about May 12, 1952, he had accepted Rs, 
100 as illegal gratification from V. S. Doraiswamy as a: 
motive or reward for doing an official act and show• 
ing in the exercise of his official functions favour to-
Doraiswamy in seeing that a speedy and favourable 
settlement of the claim cases preferred by him against 
the Bengal Nagpur Railway, subsequently the Eastern 
Railway. The charge under s. 5(2) of the Act which 
related to the same transaction stated that the appel-
lant had accepted the aforesaid sum of Rs. 100 by 
corrupt or illegal means or by otherwise abusing his 
position as a public servant. 
It is unnecessary to set out in any great detail the 
story of the prosecution as to how Doraiswamy and 
the appellant came into contact and how the process; 
S.C.R. 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
1003 
of giving bribe to the appellant began. They met in 
1950. Rs. 10 was paid to the appellant in October, 
1951; and Rs. 15 in January, 1952, as the result of the 
appellant asking Doraiswamy for some gratification 
for speedy and favourable disposal of his claim cases. 
The appellant was at that time Assistant Supervisor 
of Claim Cases of the Bengal Nagpur Railway of the 
Vizianagram Section. On some secret information, 
the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Special Poli

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.