LexJASWANT SINGH versus THE STATE OF PUNJAB
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
1957 October 2S. 762 SUPREME COURT REPORTS JASWANT SINGH v. THE STATE OF PUNJAB (B. P. SINHA and J. L. KAPuR, JJ:) (1958] Criminal trial-Sanction in respect of one offence-Trial for two offentes requiring sanction-If trial wholly void-- Prevention of Corrupt,!on Act, 1947 (II of1947), ss. 5 (1) (a), 5(1) (d) and 6. Sanction wa.s given under s. 6 of the Prevention of Cor- ruption Act, 1947, for the prosecution of the appellant for having received illegal gratification from one Pal Singh. He was charged with and tried for two offences under s. 5(1) (a) of the Act for habitually accepting or obtaining illegal gratification and under s. 5(1) (d) for receiving illegal gratification from Pal Singh. The Special Judge found both charges proved and convited the appellant. On appeal, the High Court held that the appellant could neither be tried nor convicted of the offence under s, 5(1) (a) u no sanction had been given in respect of it but upheld the conviction for the offence under s. 5(1) (d) for which sanc- tion had been given. It was argued that the conviction even for the offence under s. 5(1)(d) was illegal as the trial was wholly void and without jurisdiction : Held, that the contention that the trial for two offences· reqtiiring sanction is wholly void, where the sanction is granted'for only one offence and not for the other, is un- sustainable. The want of sanction for the offence of ,habi- tually accepting bribes does not make the taking of cogniz- ance of the offence of taking a bribe from Pal Singh void nor the trial for that offence illegal and the Court a Court without jurisdiction. Hori Ram Singh v. The Crown, (1939) F.C.R. 159 and Basir-ul-Huq v. The State of West Bengal, (1953) S.C.R. 836, referred to. CRIMINAL APPELLATE JuRISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 66 of 1954. Appeal from the judgment and order dated the 31st December, 1953, of the Punjab High Court in Criminal Appeal No. 540 of 1953, arising out of the judgment and order dated the 14th September, 1953, of the Court of Special Judge, Amritsar, in Corrup- tion Case No. 13/1-10/3 of 1953. Shaukat Hussain, for the appellant. Gopa! Singh and T. M. Sen, for the respondent. 1957. October 25. The following judgment of the Court was delivered by· S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 763 KAPUR J .-The sole point in this appeal against 1957 the judgment and order of the Punjab High Court pro- Jaswant Singh nounced on December 31, 1953, is the validity and The Stat;~1 Pullhh effect of the sanction given under s. 6( 1) of the Pre- - vention of Corruption Act (Act 2 of 1947), herein- KapurJ. after termed the Act. The .appellant was prosecuted for receiving illegal gratification and the charge ~gainst him was in the following terms : "That, you, Jaswant Singh, while employed as a Patwari, Fatehpur Rajputan habitually accepted or obtained for yourself illegal gratification and that you received in the sum of Rs. 50 on 19-3.-1953 at_Subzi Mandi Amritsar from Pal Singh P. W. as a reward for forwarding the application Es. P. A. with your recommendation for helping Santa Singh father of P1-l Singh in the allotment of Ahata No. 10 situate at village Fatehpur Rajputan and thereby committed an offence of Criminal misconduct in the discharge of y®ur duty mentioned in section 5(1) (a) of the Pre- vention of Corruption Act, 1947, punishable under sub-section 2 of section 5 of the aforesaid Act and within my cognizance." The Special Judge found that the appellant had accepted illegal gratification from Pal Singh. Hazara Singh, Harnam Singh, Joginder Singh, Atma Singh, Hari Singh and Ganda Singh and that he had receiv- ed RS. 50 from Pal Singh 'on March 19, 1953, at Subzi Mandi, Amritsar. He then held: · "The charge under section 5 ( 1) (a) of the Preven- tion of Corruption Act, 1947, has been established against him beyond reasonable doubt. He is guilty of an offence punishable under sub-section (2) of sec- tion 5 of the said Act." The appellant took an appeal to the High Court of the Punjab and Dulat J. held that taking into considera- tion the sanction which will be quoted hereinafter : "The af)pellant could neither have been charged nor convicted of what is probably a much graver offence of habitually accepting bribes." 764 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (19581 19$7 But he held that sanction was valid qua the charge Janvant s.in1h of accepting illegal gratification of Rs. 50 from Pal r1i, Stat:~/ Pun/ab
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.