LexSHIV RAJ SINGH versus DELHI ADMINISTRATION
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A
•
•
B
c
-
D
E
F
G
•
H
SHIV RAJ SINGH
v .
DELHI ADMINISTRATION
May 1, 1968
[V. RAMASWAM! AND C. A. VAIDIAL!NGAM, JJ.]
Prevention of Corruption Act (2 of 1947), ss. 5(1) and 6 and Indian
Penal Code (Act 45 of !860), s. 161-Sanction to prosecute-Sufficiency
-Scope of s. 161 I.P.C. ands. 5(1) of tile Prevention of Corruption
Act.
An unmarried woman gave birth to a child and on her request, her
uncle and aunt made arrangements for the child being brought up by
some on.c who wanted to adopt a child. The appellant, who was a
police officer, accused the uncle and aunt of having disposed of an
illegitimate child and demanded a bribe. The anti-corruption
depart-
ment was thereupon informed, a trap laid and currency notes which were
given as .Uribe were recovered from the appellant.
He was prosecuted
and convicted for offences under s. 5(2) of the Prevention of Corrup-
tion Act and s. 161, I.P.C. The High Court confirmed
the
conviction
and sentenced him to 2 years R.I.
In appeal to this Court,
HELD : ( 1) The order of sanction showed on the face of it what
were the facts constituting the offence, that 'a prima facie case was
made out and that the sanctioning authority had fully and carefully
examined the material. Therefore, the order of sanction fulfilled
the
requirements of s. 6 of the Prevention of Corruption Act. [186 B, DJ
Gokulclumd v. The King, A.I.R. 1948 P.C. 82, distinguished.
(2){a) When a public servant is charged under s. 161 I.P.C. and
it is a!legetl that illegal gratification was taken by him for doing or pro-
curing an official act, it is not necessary for the court to consider
whether or not the accused public servant was
capable of doing or
intended to do such an act. [186 F-G]
Mahesh Prasad v. Tiie Slate of U.P. [19551 I S.C.R. 965. followed.
Therefore, though the concealment of the birth of an
illegitimate
child is not an offence and the appellant could not have J2rosecuted any
one, it could n.ot be said that the obtaining of money by the appellant
for refraining fron1 an imaginary prosecution was not an offence under
s. 161 J.P.C. [186 E-Fl
(b) In any event. the appellant was guilty of an offence
under
s. 5(l)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, in that he
grossly
abused his position within the meaning of the section and thereby ob-
tained for himself pecuniary advantage. and so, the sentence imposed on
him was nat excessi'C fl 87 D, El
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION:
Criminal Appeal No .
124 of 1966.
Appeal by special leave from the judgment arid order dated
February 17, 1966 of the Punjab High Court (Circuit Bench)
Delhi in Criminal Appeal No. 63-D of 1964.
184
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
( 1969] I S.C.R.
M. C. Chag/a E. C. Agarwa/a, Santosh Agarwa/a and P. C.
A
Agarwala, for the appellant.
D. Narsaraju and R. N. Sachthey, for the respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
Ramaswami, J. This appeal is brought, by special leave, from
the judgment of the Punjab High Court dated February 17, 1966
in Criminal Appeal No. 63-D of 1964 affirming the conviction
of the appellant under s. 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption
Act (Act II of 1947) ands. 161 of the Indian Penal Code.
The case of the prosecution is that Miss Eylcnc (P.W. 2) used
to liye in 1962 with her father at Fazilka. She developed illicit
connection with someone and became pregnant. In April 1963,
she went to Ambala to her maternal aunt, who i~ employed as a
sister in the Amba!a Air Force Hospital, and give birth to a son
there in July 1963. In August 1963 Miss Eylcne along with her
newly born son came to the house o{ her uncle Russel Nathaniel
in Andrews Ganj, Delhi. Since Miss Eylene was unmarried and
could not keep the son with her, she asked Russel Nathaniel and
his wife to make arrangement for the bringing up of the child.
Russel Nathaniel knew Roshan Lal who had no child of his
own and wanted to adopt a child. Accordingly, on August 25,
1963 the child was handed over to Roshan Lal.
After the child
was handed over to Roshan Lal, Miss Eylene went to the house
of her sister's husband, N. K. Lal, P.W. II and stayed there with
her sister. It is alleged that on August 29, 1963 at about 9.30
or 10 P.M. the appellant went to the house of Russel Nathaniel
in police uniform and accused Russel Natheniel and his wife of
disposing of the illegitimate child. The appellant further warned
Mr. & Mrs. Nathaniel that if they wanted to save the1nselvesExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.