V. K. SHARMA versus THE STATE (DELHI ADMINISTRATION)

Citation: [1975] 3 S.C.R. 922 · Decided: 13-03-1975 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A. ALAGIRISWAMI · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

• 
V. K. SHARMA 
v. 
THE STATE (DELHI ADMINISTRATION) 
March 13, 1975 
(A. ALAGIR!SWAMI AND N. L. UNTWALIA, JJ.] 
Section, 4, 5(1)(a)(b)(d), 5(2) of Prevelllion of Corruption Act.-Section 
161 of l.P.C.-Pres11mptio11 under Section 4 of the Act-Competem authority to 
accord sanction whether should be competent to remove the accused from Govt. 
service or from temporary oOlce. 
· 
The appellant was convicted under section 5(2) of thr, Prevention of Corrup-
tion Act read with section 5 (1 )(d) and under section 161 of the Indian Penal 
A 
B 
Cede bv the Trial Court and was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for 2! 
C 
years. He was also sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 1000. The Delhi High Co11rt 
dismissed the appellant's appeal but reduced the sentence from 2f years to 1 
year and reduced the fine from Rs. HlOO to Rs. 500. The appellant was a Lower 
,.,,ivision Clerk in the Central Secretariat. He was appointed to the temporary 
post of Rationing Inspector having a lien on the post in the Central Secretariat. 
The appellant demanded a sum of Rs. 100 as bribe from au owner of a Ration 
Depot. 
A trap was arranged and currency notes bearing initials were handed 
over to the appellant. He was caught red handed. The appellant admitted the 
receipt of the currency notes· worth Rs. 80 /-. He, however, gave explanai-ion of 
J 
the receipt of the money. 
Both the Courts below rejected the explanation • 
untrue. 
The counsel for the appellant contended : 
(1) That the sanction given by P. W:Iyer iri this case was invalid an'.! not in 
nccordancc with section 6 of the Act. 
(2) Th<'.t P.W. Arora had no authority to lay a trap to search the person of 
the ap;Jellant or to make an investigation in the case. 
Whatever was done by 
E 
him 11<1> in contrnvention of section 5A of the Ac.t. 
(}l That neither of the charges under section 5(1)(d) of the Act or section 
161 uf. th·~ Penal Code was legally proved against the appellant. 
HELD : While dismissing the appeal, 
The appellant had his lien in the Central Secretariat. The Chief Controller, 
Rationing. would· have been competent to remove th·e appellant from his office 
as Rationing Inspector but not from his office in the Central Secretariat. There-
fore, he was not a competent authority for according sa.nction. The sanction is 
to be acccrded bi' an authority competent to remove the accused from Govern-
ment service. [925 BJ 
HELD FURTHER : Even if the search is assumed to be illegal it is of no 
consequence in this case. 
The presumption arising under section 4 of the Act 
when a public servant accepts gratification other than legal remuneration is not 
availab.Je to the J'rosecution for proving the charge under section 5 of the Act 
wi~h r~ference to clause (d) of sub-se~tion (1) of section 5. The presumption 
· anses 10 regard to an offence under sect10n 1.61 of the Penal Code or to an offence 
under section 5 ( l) (a) or (b). The High Court has elaborately and fully dealt 
with the submission made on behalf of the appellant. 
There is no justification 
to interfere with the order of the High Court. [925 D, E-G] 
CRDHNAL APPEU.jATE JuR1so1cnoN : Criminal Appeal No. 73 of 
1971. 
. 
Appeal by Special leave from the Judgment and Order dated the 
• September, 1970 of the Delhi High Court r,1 Criminal Appeal No. 
'f 1968. 
·F 
G 
H 
v. K. SHARMA v. DELHI ADMN. (Vntwalia, J.) 
923 
A 
K. B. Ro.h(agi, for the appellant. 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
5. N. Anand and R. N. Sachthey, for the respondent. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
UNTWALIA, J. 
The appellant in this appeaL by special leave has 
been convicted under section 5 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 
1947-hereinafter called the Act, read with section 5Ql)(d) and under 
·section 161 of the Indian Penal Code. 
The Trial Judge. sentenced 
the appellant u1.1der each count to undergo rigorous imprisonment 
for : 1· years. 
Sentences to run concurrently. 
He was also sentenced 
to P'JY a fine of Rs. 1,000 /- under section 5 (1) ( d) of the Act. 
The 
Delhi High Court dismissed the appellant's appeal subject to 
the 
reduction in his sentences. 
The concurrent sentence of rigorous im-
priso',1ment ~or 2t years has been reduced to one year under each 
count ancl the imposition of fine of Rs. 1,000 1- has been reduced to 
Rs. 500/-. 
The appellant was a quasi-permanent Lower Division Clerk of 
the Central Secretariat Clerical Service, Grade II and was borne on the 
cadre of Community Development and Co-operation. 
At the

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