Imam, J. - (1.) A question of law, common to these appeals by special leave, requires determination; hence they were heard together. Special leave in Criminal Appeal No. 130 of 1956 was limited to the question whether the trial court had jurisdiction to take cognizance of the offence for want of sanction under S. 6 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 (Act II of 1947), hereinafter referred to as the Act Criminal Appeal No. 25 of 1956 was not so limited and additional points were raised for our consideration, to which reference will be made when that appeal is specifically dealt with.
(2.) The question of law, common in both these appeals, is whether there was any necessity for a sanction under S. 6 of the Act before a court could take cognizance of an offence under S. 161 of the Indian Penal Code or S. 5 (2) of the Act or both, alleged to have been committed by a person who at the time the court was asked to take cognizance was not a public servant but was so at the time of the commission of the offence.
(3.) In Criminal Appeal No. 130 of 1956, the appellant was convicted under S. 5 (2) of the Act and sentenced to six months' simple imprisonment by the Special Judge, Delhi. He appealed against his conviction and sentence to the Punjab High Court. That Court while admitting the appeal issued notice upon the appellant to show cause why his sentence should not be enhanced. The High Court untimately dismissed his appeal and enhanced the sentence of six months' imprisonment to two years' rigorous imprisonment. As in this appeal special leave has been granted limited to the question already stated, it is unnecessary to set out the prosecution case against the appellant.;