Decided on April 12,1967

MITHAN LAL Appellant
STATE Respondents


- (1.) APPELLANT Mithanlal who was convicted by the Special Judge, Gangapur, for an offence under Section 161, I. P. C. and sentenced to six months' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 200/- and in default further rigorous imprisonment for three months by his judgment dated the 10th January, 1965, has lodged this appeal.
(2.) ACCUSED Mithanlal was a Patwari in the Revenue Department and was posted at village Senka in the month of July, 1963. It was alleged against him that he demanded a bribe of Rs. 100/- fromone Kirori Mina of Santha who wanted to have certified copies of Khasra entries in connection with a suit instituted by one Mat. Sukli in the Court of the Munsiff, Hindaun. Hirori paid Rs. 50/- to the accused expressing his inability to produce Rs. 100/- at the time. He promised to pay the balance on the following day. Kirori, however, did not want to pay this amount and accordingly he apprised Shri Bajpal singh, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Anti Corruption Department, Bharatpur, of the bribe that the accused had demanded from him. The Deputy Superintendent of Police then devised a trap and initialed currency notes of the value of Bs. 50/- asked Kirori to give them to the accused if he demanded them. The numbers of the currency noted were note by the Deputy Superintendent of Police in a list in the presence of Motbirs. Kirori accompanied by the members of the raid party who remained at some distance then went to the house of the accused. While Kirori entered the room where the accused was sitting, the Motbirs and other members of the raid party kept outside the room. Kirori then passed on the currency rotes to Mithanlal who took them into his hand and then put them into the pocket of his shirt and started preparing copies of the entries. Thereafter Kirori lighted a bidi which was the prearranged signal for the raid party. On receiving this signal, the raid party entered the room and the Deputy Superintendent recovered the currency notes that he had signed earlier from the person of the accused. After obtaining the sanction for prose-outing the accused from the Collector of Sawai Madhopur, a challan was put up against the accused in the Court of Special Judge, Gangapur. As to result of the trial, the accused was convicted and sentenced as mentioned at the outset.
(3.) FROM what immediately follows, it will not be necessary for me to refer to the evidence about the offence. Learned Counsel for the appellant has questioned the legality of the proceedings on the ground that the sanction for prosecution that h said to have been accorded by the Collector was not valid. The order of sanction that has been placed on the record is Ex. P. 4. It ran as follows:JUDGEMENT_52_TLRAJ0_1967Html1.htm On the face of it, the sanction is all right and if the matter had stood at that, perhaps there' was very little that the learned Counsel for the appellant could urge. However, it appears that the Collector Mr. D. C. Joseph had appeared as a witness in the case as P. W. 3 and he has stated the circumstances which led him to accord the sanction. Se stated that on the 1st October, 1964, the day on which he issued the order of sanction for prosecuting the appellant Mi hanlal, he was Collector at Sawai Madhopur. He stated that the sanction was issued by him after the perusal of the factual report of the Anti-Corruption Department and after considering the same and on coming to the conclusion that there were grounds to believe that Mithanlal Patwari had accepted illegal gratification from Kirori. He admitted in cross-examination that the factual report was received by him but he did not receive the statements of witnesses. The factual report that led the Collector to issue the sanction was, however, not brought on the record. On the basis of the evidence given by the sanctioning authority in Court the learned Counsel submitted that the Collector had not seen the evidence in the case but be based his opinion only on the factual report that was put before him by the Anti-Corruption Department. According to learned counsel, it was the duty of the Collector to have satisfied himself that the evidence that was collected against the accused made out a prima facie case. Learned Counsel further submitted that for coming to this conclusion it is the duty of the sanctioning authority to examine the matter without any bias in favour of the investigating agency and where this is lacking, the sanction is vitiated. Learned Counsel relied on State v. Hiranand , Budh Sagar v. State and State v. Nathi Lal 1957 All LJ 23 in support of his contention. Tue learned Government Advocate and shri H. N. kalla who argued the case on behalf of the State on the other band submitted that as the necessary facts constituting the offence were before the sanctioning authority and it had undoubtedly applied its mind and bad thereafter come to the conclusion that the sanction be accorded there remained no flaw in the sanction. The learned Counsel also submitted that the sanction that bas been brought on the record fully meets the requirements of law. The learned Counsel for the state placed reliance on Madan Mohan Singh v. state of Uttar Pradesh , Jaswant Singh v. state of Punjab and Jai Singh v. state of Rajasthan 1964 Raj LW 478.;

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