SHREEKANTIAH RAMA YYA MUNIPALLI versus THE STATE OF BOMBAY

Citation: [1955] 1 S.C.R. 1177 · Decided: 12-12-1954 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: BIJAN KUMAR MUKHERJEA · Disposal: Disposed off
Cited by 7 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

. -
•. 
.. 
-
• 
S.C.R. 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
1177 
have also held that there is no proof that 
the defen-
dants claimed to hold under a rent-free grant to 
the 
. knowledge of 
the plaintiff prior to 1931, and that 
what all has been established 
by 
them is 
non-pay-
ment of 
rent 
for a 
considerable 
but unascertained 
period of time. 
That, 
in itself, is 
not sufficient 
to 
m,ake their possession adverse. 
It was only in 
1931 
that the defendants 
could be 
said clearly 
to 
have 
asserted a hostile title, 
and the suits are within time 
. from that 
date. 
There is no substance 
in this plea, 
which is accordingly rejected . 
In the result, the appeals are allowed, 
the decrees 
of the District 
Court and of the High 
Court are set 
aside, and those of the District Munsif restored with 
costs in this Court and in the two Courts below. 
The 
decrees of the 
District Munsif will stand as regards 
. costs in that Court. 
Appeals allowed. 
SHREEKANTIAH RAMA YYA MUNIP ALLI 
v. 
THE STATE OF BOMBAY 
(With Connected Appeal) 
[MuKHERJEA, S. R. DAs and V1vIAN BosE, JJ.] 
Criminal Procedure Code, (Act V of 1898), s. 197-Prevention of 
· Cofruption Act, 1947 (II of 1947), s. 5(2)-Charge thereunder and 
charge under s .. 409 of the Indian Penal Code (Act XLV of 1860-
Separated from each other-Sanction granted under s. 5(2) of the Pre-
vention of Corruption Act-Whether could be extended as to cover pro-
secution under s. 409 of the Indian Penal Code-S. 197 of the Code 
of Criminal Procedure-Scope and 
construction of-Indian Penal 
Code, s. 34--Essence of-Whether the person must be. physically 
. present at the actual commission of the crime. 
· 
The three accused-Government servants-were jointly charged 
with an offence punishable under s. 5(2) of the Prevention of Cor-
ruption Act, 1947 and all three were further jointly charged with , 
having committed breach of trust in furtherance of the common in-
tention of all under s. 409 of the Indian Penal Code read with s. 34. 
Then followed a number of !!lternative charges in which each was 
separately charged with having eommitted criminal breach of trust 
personally under s. 409. 
As a further alternative, all three were 
Sri Monohar Das 
Mohanta 
v. 
Charu Chandra 
Pal and Others 
Venkatarama 
Ayyar J . 
1954 
December 2a 
Bhreekantiah 
RamaY.Jla 
Munipalli 
v. 
TheSlate of 
Bombay 
1178 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1955] 
jointly charged under s. 409. read with s. 109 for having abetted each 
other in the commission of a criminal breach of trust under s. 409. 
On objection taken to these charges, the trial for the offence under. s. 
5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act was separated from the 
trial· under s. 409 of the Indian Penal Code. The charges were re-
framed. One under s. 5(2) was dropped while others remained. On 
27-10-1949 the Governor~General acting under s. 197 of the Code of ,-
Criminal Procedure sanctioned the prosecution of the first accused 
\-"-
(appellant No. I) for offences under ss. 120-B, 409, 109 for having , 
conspired with the other two to commit criminal breach of trust in 
respect of properties belonging to Government and for having thus 
abetted the commission of that offence and also for 
having con1-
mitted it. Similar sanction was not given against the other two ac-
cused and was limited only to the Rrst accused. On the same date 
sanction was given for the prosecution of the first accused under s. 
5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 and a similar sanc-
tibn was given against the second accused. 
The question ·was whe-
ther this sanction. against the second accused could be extended to 
cover his prosecution under s. 409 and whether his trial was valid. 
Held, (answering the question in the n~gative) that under s. 
197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure the sanctioning authority 
was the Governor~General. Under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 
1947 the sanctioning authority was the Central Government, Either 
one, or two, Government authorities were given the right and in-
vested with the duty of making an election. 
If two Government 
authorities are given the right to' choose and neither can encroach 
upon the preserve of the 
other, then the 
Governor-General 
has 
not sanctioned the present prosecution 
agains.t 
the second accused 
(appellant No. 2) and no -other authority ·has the power to do so. 
Therefore the sanction given to prosecute under s. 5(2) of Act II of 
1947, could not be used to cover the present trial, 
bec
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.