LexSOM NATH versus UNION OF INDIA & ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
848 A SOM NAm v. UNION OF INDIA & ANR. May 25, 1.171 • [G. K. M!TJ'ER, c. A. .VAID!ALINGAM AND P. JAGANMOHAN c D E G H REDDY 11.) Preventio". of Corruption Act (2 of 1941), •· 5(1)(c}--Scope of. Sanction for pr0Jecution-Principle1 for granting. Practice and Procedure-Duty of prosecution to examine all Witne.JJes- Scope of. Tho appellant who was a Major in the Military Engineering Service, was in charge of the expansion work of an air strip and was given po5ses- sion of the land acquired for that purpose, along with valuable crops stand- ing on the land. He postponed giving delivery of the land to the contrac- tor for the extension work. Instead, he allowed one of the owner,s cf the land to cut the crop and take it away without in any way accounting fer it. A charge-sheet was filed against the appellant under s. 5(1) (c) and s. 5 (l)(d) read withs. 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947. He was acquitted of the offence under s. 5(1) (d) but was convicted for the offence under •. 5(1)(c) and the conviction was confirmed by the High Court. In appeal to this Court, it was contended inter alia (1) that the .;anction &iTen by the Government or bis prosecution did not cover the trial of the char10 under 1. 5(1) (c); and (2) the prosecution did not examine all tht witn...,.. necessary to unfold the story of the prosecution. HELD: (I) For a sanction to be valid it must be established that the sanction waa aiven in respect of the facts constituting the offence with which tho accused is proposed to be charged. It is desirable that the facts 1hould be referred to in the sanction itself. If they do not appear on th• face of it, tho prosecution must establish aliunde by evidence that tho .. tacts were placed before the sanctioning authority. The sanction must disclose that the sanctionin11 authority bad fully applied its mind to the• and the sanction should be correlated to the particular offence or offencH witll which tho accused io cbaried or convicted. [8S2B-F) In the present cue, the facts which the Government considered for tho purpose of grantinll sanction were :(a) that the appellant "'"' a public servant entrusted with crops standing on tho land acquired for !be ex- sion of an air field, (b) that by abnsing bis position as a public servant he allowed standing crop to be cut from the said land, (c) that by corrupt or IDegal means and by abusing his position as a public servant be obtain- ed pecuniary advantage of about Rs. 2,000 as the value of the crops that were cut from the land and that he dishonestly or fraudulently misappro- priated the same by converting it into his own use. Under s. S(I) (c) of the Act a public servant shall be said to have committed the offence of misconduct in bis duties if he dishonestly allows any other person to con- vert to his own use property which is entrusted to the said public servant. The facts which have been set out in the order granting th• sanction are sufficient to indicate that tho authorities granting the sanction had tho SOJ.I NATH v. UNION (Jaganmohan Reddy, J.) 849 offence under s. 5(1)(c) in their contemplation. In fact, the order specifi- A cally mentions that provision while granting sanction. Even if there was an inference or implication that the persons cutting the crops were abetting the appellant in the offence the sanction could not be held to be bad on that account. [854D, 855DJ Bhagat Ram v. State of Puniab, A.l.R. 1954 S.C. 621, Madan Mohan Singh v. State of U.P. A.l.R. 1954 S.C. 637, Goku/ Chand Dwarkadas Mo- rarka v. The King, A.l.R., [1948] P.C. 82 and .Jaswant Singh v. State of B Puniab, [1958] S.C.R. 762, referred to. (2) With reference to each one of the person who, according to the appellant, should have, been called as witnesses there was alerady evidence relating to the particular matter about which those persons would have given evidence. In the circumstances the non-examination of other wit- nesses, without anything more, could not be treated as a defect in the pro- secution. [863G] C CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. 102 of 1969. Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated April 9, 1969 of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Criminal Appeal No. 1055 of 1966. · D Frank Anthony and K. B. Rohatgi, for the appellant. H. R. Khanna and R. N. SachJhey, for the respondents. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Jaganmohan Reddy, J.-This Appea
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.