OM PRAKASH GUPTA versus STATE OF U. P.

Citation: [1957] 1 S.C.R. 423 · Decided: 11-01-1957 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: SUDHI RANJAN DAS · Disposal: Dismissed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

S.C.R. 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
423 
It was lastly contended for the appellant tliat even 
.if the High Court could hold a preliminary enquiry 
into the conduct of a judicial officer, it had no jurisdic-
tion to decide the matter finally, that the findings 
given by Balakrishna Ayyar J. should not be held to 
conclude the question against the appellant, and that 
the Government was bound to hold a fresh enquiry 
and decide for itself whether the charges were well-
founded. No such question was raised in the petition 
or in the High Court, and we must, therefore, decline 
to entertain it. 
In the result, the appeal is dismissed with costs. 
Appeal dismissed. 
OM PRAKASH GUPTA 
v. 
STATE of U. P. 
(with connected appeals) 
(S. R. 
DAS c. J., 
BHAGWATI, 
VENKATARAMA 
AYYAR, 
S. K. DAs and GovINDA MENON JJ.) 
Implied repeal-Whether s. 409 of the Indian Penal Code is im-
pliedly repealed by s. 5(J)(c) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 
1947 (II of 1947)-Whether the application of s. 409 of the Indian 
Penal Code to a public servant infringes Art. 14 of the Constitution-
Sanction-Whethei· sanction under s. 6 of the Prevention of Corrup-
tion Act necessary for prnsecution under s. 409 of the Indian Penal 
Code. 
The offences under s. 409 of the Indian Penal Code ands. 5(1)(c) 
of 
the 
Prevention 
of 
Corruption Act, 
1947 
are distinct 
and 
separate, and there is no question of s. 5(1)(c) of the Prevention of 
Corruption Act, 1947 repealing s. 409 of the Indian Penal Code. 
Amarendra Nath Roy v. The State, A.LR. [1955] 
Cal. 236, 
:;ipproved. 
The legislature would not have intended in the normal course 
of things, that a temporary statute like the Prevention of Corrup-
tion Act, 1947, should supersede an enactment of antiquity 
like 
the Indian Penal Code. 
In the view that the two offences under s. 409 of the Indian 
Penal Code and s. S(l)(c) of the Prevention of Corruption Act are 
distinct and 
separate 
there is no infringement of Art. 14 of the 
1956 
Mohammad Ghow1 
v. 
Stat• of A11dhra 
V tnkatarama 
Ayyar J. 
1957 
January, 11. 
1957 
Om Prakash Gupta 
v. 
State of U. P. 
424 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(1957] 
• 
Constitution in the application of s. 409 of the Indian Penal Code 
to a public servant. 
Sanction under s. 6 of the Prevention of Corruption 
~o\ct, 1947 
is 
not 
necessary 
for a prosecution 
under s. 409 of the Indian 
Penal Code. 
State v. Pandurang Baburao A.R.I. 
(1955) Born. 451, 
Bhup 
Narain Saxena v. State, A. I. R. (1952) All. 35 and State v. Guiab 
Singh, A.LR. (1954) Raj. 211, approved. 
State v. Gurcharan Singh, (1952) Punj. 89, overruled. 
CRIMINAL 
APPELLATE 
JuRISDICTION: 
Criminal 
Appeals No. 42 of 1954 and Nos. 3 and 97 of 1955. 
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and 
order dated July 7, 1953, of the Allahabad High Court 
in Criminal Revision No. 1113 of 1953 arising out of 
the judgmem and order dated June 24, 1953, of the 
· Court of Sessions Judge, Kumaun, in Criminal Appeal 
No. 42 of 1953 (N). Appeal under Article 134(1) (c) of 
the Constitution from the judgment and order dated 
December 23, 
1954, of the Allahabad High Court 
(Lucknow Bench) in Criminal Revision No. 141 of 1951 
and Criminal Miscellaneous Applications Nos. 454 of 
1952 and 159 of 1953 arising out of the judgment and 
order dated June 4, 1951, of the Civil and Sessions 
Judge, Sitapur in Criminal Revision No. 5 of 1951. 
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order 
dated January 16, 1952, of the Judicial Commissioner's 
Court, Vindhya Pradesh, Rewa, in Criminal Revision 
No. 216 of 1951 arising out of the judgment and order 
dated September 29, 
1951, of the Court of Sessions 
Judge at Rewa in Criminal Appeal No. 14 of 1951. 
S. C. Isaacs and P. C. Agtt1'wala, for the appellant in 
Criminal Appeal No. 42 of 1954. 
S. C. Isaacs and 0. N. Srivastava, for the appellant 
in Criminal Appeal No. 3 of 1953. 
S. C. Isaacs, f. B. Dadachanii, S. N. Andley and 
Rameshwar Nath, for the appellant in Criminal Appeal 
No. 97 of 1955. 
G. C. Mathur and C. P. Lal, for the respondent in 
Criminal Appeals Nos. 42 of 1954 and 3 of 1955. 
S.C.R. 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
425 
Porus A. Mehta an<l R. H. Dhebar, for the respondent 
in Criminal Appeal No. 97 of 1955. 
1957. January 11. 
The Judgment of the Court was 
delivered by 
GovrNDA 
MENON J.- Though these three appeals 
have been filed against the decisions of different courts 
and arc not connected either as regards community of 
purpose or the identity of the accu
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.