SHRIDHAR MAHADEO DHAMORIKAR Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) For the purposes of decision of this appeal it is not necessary to set out the entire evidence led by the prosecution, but suffice it to say that the prosecution evidence was accepted by the learned Special Judge so far as the appellant was concerned, but the learned Judge came to the conclusion that there was no case against the labour officer. He, therefore, acquitted the labour officer. One of the important question which was raised before the learned Special Judge was that the sanction which was given by the Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Nagpur, purporting to be under S. 6 of the Prevention of Corruption Act. 1947, was invalid, and according to the accused, therefore, the prosecution itself was bad.

(2.) The learned Judge accepted the evidence of P.W. 5 Ajab Chore, that Sri R. A. Sheikh, the Deputy Commissioner of Labour, had accorded sanction for the prosecution of the accused. The learned Judge then referred to a compilation which appears to have been produced before him during the course of argument styled as a "Handbook of Statutory, Financial and Administrative Powers of the Commissioner of Labour and his Subordinates." This handbook is a cyclostyled document and the learned Judge relied on an entry at p. 60 which states the statutory, financial and administrative powers of the Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Nagpur, and he also relied on an entry at p. 70 for holding that the Deputy Commissioner of Labour at Nagpur had power to remove from service a Government servant of Class III and Class IV services only. It may be stated that this document is not a part of the record, though it has been produced before me also by the learned counsel appearing for the State Government. On the basis of this handbook, the learned Judge held that the accused Dhamorikar was a Class III Government servant in the Labour Office, Nagpur, and as such, he could be removed from service by the Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Nagpur. The learned Judge, therefore, took the view that late Sri Sheikh, the Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Nagpur, was a competent authority to sanction prosecution of the accused. On merits also the learned Judge having found that the prosecution has succeeded in proving the case against the accused convicted him for both the offences and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of eighteen months and to pay a fine of Rs. 500, in default to undergo further imprisonment for three months for the offence under S. 5(2) read with S. (5)(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947. No separate sentence was awarded in respect of the offence under S. 161 of the Indian Penal Code. The accused is now challenging his conviction in this appeal.

(3.) The learned counsel appearing for the accused wanted to challenge the conviction on three grounds. The first ground was that the entire investigation resulting in prosecution of the accused was illegal. The second ground was that the prosecution has not obtained a valid sanction as required by S. 6 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, and on merits the contention was that the prosecution had failed to show that the accused had demanded or received any illegal gratification so as to make him liable for the offences with which he was charged. Before going into the first and the last contention. I have heard the learned counsel on his contention that the sanction was not given by the appropriate authority, because if that contention was upheld, the entire proceeding before the learned Special Judge would be void and without jurisdiction.