PARMANAND DASS versus STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

Citation: [1979] 1 S.C.R. 792 · Decided: 15-09-1978 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: JASWANT SINGH · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
792 
PARMANAND DASS 
v. 
STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH 
September 15, 1978 
[JASWANT SINGH AND P. S. KA!LASAM, JJ.] 
Sanctioning authority for the purposes of Section 6 of the Preve11Jion of 
Corruption Act under the Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955 as 
aniended by Act II of 1970-Whether subsequent sancrion is invalid since an 
I 
earlier sanction was held to be invalid. 
The prosecution of the appellant, who '"as charged for having received an 
illegal gratification was held to be bad by the Special Judge, since the sanction 
for the prosecution under Section 6 of the Prevention of Corruption Act was 
granted by the Commissioner instead of the Standing Committee of the Hydera-
bad Municipality. He was, therefore, reinstated in service and when the Com-
missioner wrote again for the sanction, the Standing Committee recorded on 
17-6-70 to drop the case on the ground that it was an old case and the 
appellant had already been reinstated in service. 
The Hyderabad Municipal Corporation (Amendment) Act II of 1970 came 
into force on 27-6-70, under which a provision was made for the appointment 
of a special officer to exercise the powers, to perform the duties and discharge 
the functions of (a) the Corporation (b) the Standing Committee and ( c) the 
Commission under the Act. This provision was to be in force for a period 
of two years with effect from 3-8-70 with a further provision that it shall not 
be extended beyond 31-10-75. 
After Act II of 1970 came into force, on 29-7-72 a memor&11dum was sub-
mitted in the nature of a note to the Standing Committee to take a fresh 
decision on the issue of prosecution of the appellant and for granting sanction 
to prosecute the appellant. 
On 15-5-73, the Standing Committee by its resolu-
tion authorised the special officer to sign the sanction order and to send it to 
Anti-Corruption Bureau, Hyderabad. In pursuance of the resolufion, a sanction 
order was passed on 16-6-73. 
On 29-11-73 the appellant was placed under 
suspension and on l 1-12-75, the special judge dismissed the. petitioner~s objections 
to the validity of th.!. sanction. The appellant filed the appeal by special leaver 
as the High Court dismissed his criminal revision petition. 
G 
Allowing the appea.l, the Court 
H 
HELD : 1. There can be no legal bar to the sanctioning authority revising 
its opinion before the sanction order is placed before the Court. 
The validity 
of the sanction can only be considered at the time when it is filed before the 
Special Judge. SUbsequent sanction having been given, in the present case, by 
the competent authority, the plea that the Stoo.ding Committee again considered 
the question but decided to drop the proceedings on the ground that it was an 
old case .and the appellant had already been reinstated in service cannot be 
accepted. [794D·F] 
' 
' . 
... 
.. 
., 
"-/ 
• 
• 
·-··/ 
/.' 
I 
. 
P. DASS v. A. P. STATE (Kailasam, I.) 
793 
. . -~---. - ~--·--· 
2. :The validity of thC sa~ction cannot be upheld, as the speCiat ~ffi.cer who 
A 
is entitleJ. under the Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955 as amended 
by Act II of 1970, has not given the sanction as a special officer or by himselt 
exerci~ing the po\1.'ers of the Standing Committee. but issued the sanction order 
. in pursU<Ulce of the sanction given by the Standing Committee by its resoIU.tiPn 
dt 15-5-1973. 
[796C-D] 
. 
-
CRllllNAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Crimi'nal Appeal No .. 482 
n 
of 1976. 
Appeal by Special Leave from the Judgment ·dated 20-1-1976 of 
the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Criminal Revision Case No. 18 of 
1976. 
R. V. Pillai am! H. K. Puri for !he Appellant. 
P. Parmeshwara Rao and G. N. Rao for the Respondent. 
The Judgment of th~ Court was delivered by ·c-·-
KAILASAM, J. This appeal is by sp~cial leave against tbe judgment 
c 
of Andhra Pradesh High Court, in Criminal Revision No. 18 of 1976 
D 
holding tbat tbe sanction order given for prosecuting the appellant is 
va~id and dismissing his Revision Petition. 
The appellant Parmanand Dass, was appointed as 
a clerk in 
Hyderabad Municipal Corporation on 15-1-1951 in the scale of 
Rs. 40-50 and was promoted to the scale of Rs. 50-105 on 1-9-1956. 
A charge of having received an illegal gratificatio·n of Rs. 15 /- was 
brought ag;inst him and .he was. suspended on 22-9-1966. 
On 
27-5-1967, _the Commissioner of tbe Municipal Corporation ghve sa'nc-
tion for prosecution under section 6 of the Prevention of Corruption 

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