Decided on December 04,1979

STATE Respondents


A.N.SURTI, D.C.GHEEWALA - (1.) At the very out set we may say that the hearing of the appeal reached hearing yesterday before the recess commenced at 2 P. M. and to-day after all arguments on merits were advanced by Mr. Raval the learned advocate for the appellant he raised two points for our considers- tion those points were preliminary points. He urged by way of preliminary points the following two points : (1) That the sanction to prosecute the appellant-accused was not in accordance with law. In this behalf the grievance was that the proper authority has not granted the sanction to prosecute. Now in this behalf it may be stated that the sanction to prosecute was granted by the District Development Officer. The learned Special Judge took the view that in the instant case even an officer subordinate to the District Development Officer could have accorded the sanction viz. even the Deputy District Development Officer should have accorded the sanction as he was the appointing authority. In the instant case the officer higher than the Deputy District Development Officer has granted the sanction. In this view of the matter there is no title of substance or merit in the said point raised by Mr. Raval at the fag end of the arguments advanced by him on the merits of the matter.
(2.) He also urged that in instant case the charge which was levelled against the appellant-accused did not contain any specific allegation in regard to the demand of the bribe alleged to have been made by the appellant-accused. In this behalf it may be stated that the learned Special Judge has given his detailed reasons in para II of the judgment and he took the view that in the instant case as there was complete evidence as regards the acceptance of the bribe money it was not open to the appellant-accused to take the technical advantage of the non-mention of the allegation as to the demand of the bribe money. The learned Judge referred to the Judg- ment of the Supreme Court in Sita Ram v. State of Rajasthan A. I. R. 1975 Supreme Court 1432 It may be stated that in that case before the Supreme Court there was no satisfactory evidence about the payment of money by the complainant and hence the presumption under sec. 4 of the Corruption Act could not be drawn for convicting the accused. The Supreme Court having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case took the view that the demand of the bribe from the com- plainant was not proved. In the case before us we are convined beyond any doubt that the prosecution has proved acceptance of the bribe money and hence second point which was argued by Mr. Raval at the fag end of the argument has no merit at all.
(3.) Before we proceed to decide the case on merits of the matter we must mention that in course of hearing of any criminal appeal if any point which relates either to the defect in any charge or the defect in any sanction to prosecute or investigate is taken up it is the peremptory duty of the Counsels at the bar to advance such points at the very out set of the hearing of the appeal because that will be in good taste with a view to save public time. This is a case where the arguments on the merits were heard for more than four hours and if at the fag end of the com- pletion of the arguments if points touching the sanction to prosecute or the legality of the charge is taken and if the court agrees with such a point it would obviously result into waste of public time. Under the circumstances Counsels at the bar are requested to bear in mind the importance of the public time and should raise points of the aforesaid nature at the very outset of the hearing of the appeal. Any departure from the aforesaid settled practice is deplorable and not in the best interest of public time.;

Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.