LexMAHESH PRASAD versus THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
' -~> ... . - -- ' ( S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 965 MAHESH PRASAD ti. THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH. [MuKHERJEA, VIVIAN BosE, and JAGANNADHADAS JJ.J Indian Penal Code (Act XLV of 1860), s. 161-Accused's power or intention to do the official act-Relevancy-Charge- Prevention of Corruption Act (II of 1947), s. 6(c) (as it existed prior to August 12, 1952)-Indian Railway Establishment Code Vol. I (1951 Ed.), rule 1705(c)-Test of sanction. When a public servant is charged under section 161 of the Indian Penal Code, and it is alleged that the illegal gratification was taken by him for doing or procuring an official act, it is not necessary for the Court to consider whether or not the accused as public servant was capable of doing or intended to do such an act. In a case where the illegal gratification is alleged to have been received by the accused as a public servant for influencing some superior officer to do an act, the charge framed against such accused under section 161 of the Code need not specify the parti- cular superior officer sought to be so influenced~ In view of article 311 ( 1) of the Constitution of India and rule 1705(c) of the Indian Railway Establishment Code, Volume I (1951 Edition) a sanction under section 6(c) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 (as it existed prior to August 12, 1952) may be given either by the very authority who appointed the public -servant or by an authority who is directly superior to such appointing authority in the same department. But such sanction is also legal if it is given by an authority who is equal in rank or _grade with the appointing authority. Sanction is invalid if it is given by one who is subordinate to or lower than the appointing .authority. CRIMINAL APPELLATE JurusmcTION : Criminal Appeal No. 39 of 1954. Appeal by Special Leave from the Judgment and Order dated the 5th May, 1953, of the Lucknow Bench of Allahabad High Court in Criminal Revision No. 200 of 1952, arising out of the Judgment and Order, dated the 17th May, 1952, of the Special Magistrate, Anti- Corruption for Uttar Pradesh at Lucknow in Case No. 40 of 1951. Hardyal Hardy (K. L. Arora and S. D. Sekhri, with him) for the appellant. 1954 October 29 966 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1955] x954 0. P~ Lal for the respondent. Mahesh Prasad 1954. October 29. The Judgment of the Court was v. delivered by The State of'--------· · Uttar Pradesh\' · JAGANNADHADAS J.-The appellant in thi3 case was · - a clerk in the office of the Running Shed Foreman of Jagannad~ad"' J. the East· Indian Railway at Kanpur. He was con- victed under section 161 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for one year and nine months, and also to a fine of Rs. 200. The con- viction and sentence have been upheld by the Sessions Judge on appeal and by the HighCourt in revision. The charge against the appellant was that on the 6th of January, 1951, he accepted illegal gratification of Rs.150 from the complainant, Gurphekan-a retren~ ched cleaner in the Locomotive Department of the Railway, examined as P.W. 2--as a motive for getting him re-employed in the Railway (by arranging with some superior officer). There was an alternative charge under section 162 of the Indian Penal Code but it is no longer necessary to notic.e it since the conviction is for the main charge under section 161 of the Indian Penal Code. The Special Police Establishment having received information of the demand of the bribe arrang- ed for a trap and caught the appellant just at the time when he received the sum of Rs. 150 from the com- plainant and seized the amount. The appellant admitted the receipt of the money but denied that he demanded or accepted it as a bribe. His case was that the complainant had previously borrowed money from him and that this money was paid in discharge of the debt. The Courts below have rejected the defence and accepted the prosecution case and conviction followed thereupon. · · · Learned counsel for the appellant has tried to per- suade us, with reference to the evidence in the case, that the view taken by the Courts below is ·unsus· tainable. It is unnecessary to notice this argument in any detail because this'is an appeal on special leave and nothing so seriously wrong with the findings of fact have been shown, which call for interference by this I ' ! .. " I S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 967
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.