LexS.A.VENKATARAMAN versus THE STATE
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
1957 December, 3. 1040 SUPREME COURT REPORTS S.A.VENKATARAMAN v. THE STATE (and connected appeal) [1958] (B. P. SINHA, JAFER IMAM and J. L. KAPUR JJ.) Criminal trial-Public servant accused of criminal mis- conduct-Dismissal from service before taking of cogni- zance by Court-Sanction to prosecute, if necessary-Inter- pretation-Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 (II of 1947), SS. 5(2), 6. The appellant who was a public servant was dismissed from service after departmental inquiry. Thereafter he was charged with having committed the offence of criminal misconduct under s. 5 (2), Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 and was convicted. No sanction under s. 6 of the Act was produced before the trial Court. It was contended that the Court could not take cognizance of the offence without there being a proper sanction to prosecute : ·Held, that no sanction under s. 6 of the Act was neces- sary for the prosecution of the appellant as he was not a public servant at the time of the taking of cognizance of the offence. In construing the provisions of a statute it is essential for a Court, in the first instance, to give effect to the natural meaning of the words used therein, if those words are clear enough. It is only in the case of any ambiguity that a Court is entitled to ascertain the intention of the legislature. Where a general power to take cognizance of an offence is vested in a Court, any prohibition to the exercise of that power, by any provision of law, must be confined to the terms of the prohibition. The words in s. 6 (I) of the Act are clear enough and must be given effect to. The more important words in cl. (c) of s. 6 (I) are "of the authority competent to remove him from his office". A public servant who has ceased to be a public servant is not a person removable from any office by co;.n- petent authority. The conclusion is inevitable that at the time a Court is asked to take cognizance not only must the offence have been committed by a public servant but the person accused must still be a public servant removable from his office by a competent authority before the pro- visions of s. 6 can apply. CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Ap- peal No. 130 of 1956. Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated May 12, 1955, of the Punjab High Court in Criminal Appeal No. 52-D of 1954, arising out of S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 1041 the judgment and order dated December 6, 1954, of the Court of the Special Judge at Delhi in Corruption Case No. I of 1954. N. C. Chatterjee and C. V. L. Narayan, for the ap- pellant in Cr. A. No. 130 of 56. Jai Gopal Sethi and Naunit Lal, for the appellant in Cr. A. No. 25 of 56. C. K. Daphtary, Solicitor-General of India, A.M. Chatterjee, H. R. Khanna and R. H. Dhebar, for the respondent in both the appeals. 1957. December 3. The following Judgment of the Court was delivered by IMAM J.-A question of law, common to these ap- peals by special leave, requires determination; hence they were heard together. Special leave in Criminal Appeal No. 130 of 1956 was limited to the question whether the trial court had jurisdiction to take cognizance of the offence for want of sanction uncfer s. 6 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 (II of 1947), hereinafter referred to as the Act. Criminal Appeal No. 25 of 1956 was not so limited and addi- tional points were· raised for our consideration, to which reference will be made when that appeal is specifically dealt with. The question of law, common in both these appeals, is whether there was any necessity for a sanction under s. 6 of the Act before a court could take cogniz- ance of an offence under s. 161 of the Indian Penal Code or s. 5(2) of the Act or both, alleged to have been committed by a person who at the time the court was asked to take cognizance was not a public servant but was so at the time of the commission of the offence. In Criminal Appeal No. 130 of 1956, the appellant was convicted under s. 5(2) of the Act and sentenced to six months' simple imprisonment by the Special Judge, Delhi. He appealE:d against his conviction and sentence to the Punjab High Court. That Court while admitting the appeal iRsue<l notice upon the appellant to show cause why his sentence should not be enhanc- ed. The High Court ultimately dismissed his appeal 1957 S. A. Venkata- raman v. The State Imam J. 1957 S. A. Venkara~ roman v. The State bnam J. 10
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.