LAKSHMI SHANKAR SRIVASTAVA versus STATE (DELHI ADMINISTRATION)

Citation: [1979] 2 S.C.R. 348 · Decided: 21-11-1978 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: P.S. KAILASAM · Disposal: Dismissed
Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
0 
E 
F 
·G 
:H 
348 
LAKSHMI SHANKAR SRIVASTAVA 
v. 
STATE (DELHI ADMINISTRATION) 
November 21, 1978 
[P. S. KAILASAM, D. A. DESAI AND A. D. KoSHAL, JJ.J 
A11pea/, abofr n1ent of-An appt•al does not abate on the dtll!/J af tlte occr.1st'd 
wllen !~are is granted to the near rrlath·e to continue thr 
appea!--Crimlnal 
Procedure Code 1973 (Act If of 1974), Section 394(2) r/H-· .'Y!C. 8(3) an.i 9 
oj the Criniinal Law A1ne11dme11t Act. 
Sanction for pro.sccution-Ef]ect of the order issued by S.U.O. 631 by fire 
/'resident of India, in exercise of the p0)4,'er conferred by sub rufe (2) of rule 
II, Cfou.- (b) of :rub rule (2) of rule 14 and sub rule (1) of rule 23 of ti" 
Cenlrtil Cii1il Seri:ices (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rulrs 1957. 
The appellant who was working as an investigator in the office 
of the 
Chief Controller of Imports and Exports was charged, 
found 
guilty 
and 
convicted and scnlenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 18 months on each 
count for an offence under Sections 5(l)(d) and 5(2) of the PreTention of 
Corruption Act, 1947 and section 161 I.P.C. and a fine of Rs. 200 /- or in 
c.Jefau1t to undergo further rigorous imprisonment under section 5(2) of the 
Ac~. His appeal to the High Court was dismissed and the 
conviction 
and 
sentence \Vere confirmed. 
Special leave was granted by the Supreme Court 
limited to the question of validity of sanction accorded under section 6 of 
the Prevent.ion of Corruption Act, 1947. 
"fhe· appellant died durir1g the pen· 
dency of the ttppeal and his near relatives were granted permission to continue 
tbe appeal. 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
lIELD 1. The preliminary objection of the State as to the abatement of 
the appeal been-use of the death of the appellant taking i11tu account prepared-
ness to conclude that the sentence might be set aside1 must be ncgatiYcd. [352Dl 
(a) As per the proviso to section 394(2) of the 
Criminal 
Procedure 
Code, 1973, where the appeal is against the conviction and sentence of 
im-
prisonment and the appe1lant dies during the pendency of the appeal, any of 
his near relatives may, within the time prescribed 
therein, 
apply to the 
appeJil&te Court before which the appeal is pending for leave to continue the 
appeal and jf the ]eave is granted the appeal shall not abate. 
[352A-B] 
(b) The appellant, in the instant case, has preftrred the appeal against his 
conviction and sentence of imprisonment and also sentence of fine. 
After 
his death his near relatives as contempJlated in the Explanation to sub section 
(2) of section 394 Crl. P.C., applied to continue the appeal and were granted 
leave to continue the appeal. 
Therefore, the near relations of the deceased 
can continue the appeal Md even if the respoadent State concedes that the 
sentence of fine be set aside yet the appeal would not aba-te if leave is granted 
to the near relation of the deceased to continue the appeal. [352C-D] 
I 
....._ 
( 
L. S. SRIVASTAVA V. STATE 
349 
.. ~ 
2. 'Ihe sanction accorded, for prosecution of the appctlMt under section 6 , A 
-0f the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 by the Joint Chief Controller of 
Imports and Exports is valid in law: [355H, 356A] 
(a) The instant case is governed by Central Civil Sen'ices (Classification, 
Control & Appeal) Rules, 1965 and in view of S.R.O. 631 
issued 
by 
the 
President, in exercise of the po~·ers conferred by sub rule (2) of rule 11, 
clause (b) of sub rule (2) of rule 14, and sub rule (2) of rules 23 of the 
B 
,. 
) .t 
Central Civil Services. (Cltissification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1957, which 
order was sarnl by rule 34 of the 1965 Rules. 
[353C-D] 
(b) Ruic 121 l) and (2) of 1965 Rules is in pari 111atuu1 with rul'e 14 of 
1957 Rules. 
Rule 12 of 1965 Rules confers power on the President to impose 
:1ny of the penalties specified in rule 11 on any Government servant. 
Sub~ 
rule (2)(b) provides that any person appointed to a Central 
Civil 
Post 
included in the General Central Service by the Ruthority specified in 
this 
behalf by a general or special order of the President or where no such order 
has been issued, by the appointing authority specified in the Schedule in this 
behalf, may impose any of the penalties specified in rule 11 which includes 
the penti1ty of removal from service. 
Therefore, the President has the power 
to issue any general or spoci~:l oral.er to confer pov.•er to impose penalties 
~ 
specified in rule 11 on any authotity other than
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.