R.R. CHARI versus STATE OF U. P.

Citation: [1963] 1 S.C.R. 121 · Decided: 28-03-1962 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: P.B. GAJENDRAGADKAR · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

' 1 s.c.R. · 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
R.R. CHARI 
v. 
STATE OF U. P. 
121 
(P. B. G.AJENDRAGADKAR and K. N. WANCHOO, JJ.) 
Oriminal Trial-Bribery and forgery-P'lll>Uc Servant, 
tried by Sessions Jurlge-Legality of trial-Accused permanent 
servant of Assam Government loaned to Central· Government-
Sanction by Central Government, validity of-CrimiMl Law 
Amendment Act, 1952 (46 of 1952), ss. 7, 10-Code of Criminal 
Procedure, 1898 (Act of 1898), ss. 197, 213-Prevention of 
Oorruption Act 1947 (2 of 1947) s. 6. 
The appellant was 
in the permanent service of the 
Assam Government but his services were lent to 'the Central 
Government. At the relevant time, ie., December 1945 to 
September 1946, he was posted at Kanpur as Deputy Iron 
& Steel Controller. 
In connection with 
the granting of 
permits to certain persons charges under ss. 120B, 161, 165 . 
and 467 Indian Penal Code, and under r. 473(3) read with 
r.472, Defence of India Rules were levelled against him. 
Sanction for his prosecution was granted by the Central 
Government on January 31, 1949, and a charge sheet was 
submitted against him. On March I, 1952, the appellant 
was committed to the Court of Sessions for trial. The trial 
commenced on May, 7, 1953, and the Sessions Judge con-
victed the appellant of all the charges. On appeal the High 
Court upheld the conviction under ss. \6'1 and 467 Indian 
Penal Code and set aside the conviction on the other charges. 
The appellant contended (i) that the trial by the Sessions 
Judge was illegal as after the coming into force of the Cri-
minal Law Amendment Act, 195'2, on July 28, 1952, he 
~ould only be tried by a Special Judge, and (ii) that the 
sanction granted by the Central Government was invalid 
and of no avail as sanction for the prosecution of the appel-
lant could only be granted by the Assam Government in 
whose permanent employment the appellant was. 
Held, that the Sessions Judge had jurisdiction to hold 
the trial and it was not required that the appellant -should 
have been tried by a special Judge. Though s.7 of the 
Criminal Law Amendment required all offences under ss.161 
and 165 Indian Penal Code to be tried by a Specialjudge, 
the section was only prospective and did not provide for 
ttansfe!r of all pending cases. Under s.IO ofthe Act only 
such cases triable by a Special Judge under s.7 as were ac-
tually pendjng before any Magistrate immediatelv befor~ 
1962 
R.R, Chqri 
v, 
Stat16f UP. 
122 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1963] 
the commencemcn t of the Act could be transferred to the 
Special Judge. The case against the appellant having 
already bc~:1 co1nmi tted to the Sessions was no longer pend· 
ing- beft>re the Magistrate. The mere fact that the Magis· 
trate still had power, under s.216 of the Code of Criminal 
Procedure, to surnn1on witnesses for the defence and bind 
them to clppcar before the Court of Sessions, did not imply 
that his jurisdiction to deal wh:h the merits of the case 
continued. 
Held, further that thougl:i the sanction granted by the 
Central Government was a good sa11ction under s. 197 of the 
Code of Criminal Procedure it was not a valid sanction under 
s.6 of the Ptevention of Corruption Act. At the time when 
the sanction vvas granted the appellant was in the permanent 
employment of the Assam Government but he was en1ployed 
in the nffairs of the Federation. 
Under s.197,. in cases of 
persons 
einployed in connection with the affairs of the 
FederatiCJl; the Governor·General was the authority to grant 
the sanction and in cases of persons employed in connection 
with 1lie affairs of the States it \vas the Governot. Under 
· s.6 of the Corruption .Act the position was different. ClausCs 
(a) and (b) of the section dealt with persons permanently 
employed in connection with the affairs of the Federation or 
of the Provinces and in regard to 
them, the appropriate 
authoritie::. were the c:entral Government and the Provincial 
Government. 
The 
word 
"employed" in cls.(a) and (b) 
referred 
to employment of a permanent character. The 
case of a public servant "·hose services were loaned· by one 
Governinent to another fell under cl.(c) under which sanction 
could be granted by the authority competent to remove him 
from his service. 
The authority competent to remove the 
appellant fron1 his service was the Assam Government and 
that Government alone co~1Id have granted a valid sancti'Jn 
for the prosecution of the appellant. Accordingly the trial of 
the appellant fo

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