Kapur, J. - (1.) The sole point in this appeal against the judgment and order of the Punjab High Court pronounced on December 31, 1953, is the validity and affect of the sanction given under S. 6 (1) of the Prevention of Corruption Act (Act 2 of 1947), hereinafter termed the Act.
(2.) The appellant was prosecuted for receiving illegal gratification and the charge against him was in the following terms: "That, you, Jaswant Singh, while employed as a Patwari, Fatehpur Rajputan habitually accepted or obtained for yourself illegal gratification and that you received in the sum of Rs. 50 on 19-3-1953 at Subzi Mandi Amritsar from Pal Singh P. W. as a reward for forwarding the application Es. P. A. with your recommendation for helping Santa Singh father of Pal Singh in the allotment of Ahata No. 10 situate at village Fatehpur Rajputan and thereby committed an offence of criminal misconduct in the discharge of your duty mentioned in S. 5 (1) (a) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, punishable under sub-S. (2) of S. 5 of the aforesaid Act and within my cognizance." The Special Judge found that the appellant had accepted illegal grantification from Pal Singh, Hazara Singh, Harnam Singh, Joginder Singh, Atma Singh, Hari Singh and Ganda Singh and that he had received Rs. 50 from Pal Singh on March 19, 1953, at Subzi Mandi, Amritsar. He then held: "The charge under S. 5 (1) (a) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 has been established against him beyond reasonable doubt. He is guilty of an offence punishable under sub-S. (2) of S. 5 of the said Act." The appellant took an appeal to the High Court of the Punjab and Dulat, J., held that taking into consideration the sanction which will be quoted hereinafter: "The appellant could neither have been charged nor convicted of what is probably a much graver offence of habitually accepting bribes." But he held that sanction was valid qua the charge of accepting illegal gratification of Rs. 50 from Pal Singh. The conviction was therefore upheld but the sentence was reduced to the period already undergone and the sentence of fine maintained.
(3.) The argument raised by the appellant in this court is that as the sanction was confined to illegal gratification of Rs. 50 paid by Pal Singh and the charge was for habitually accepting illegal gratification the trial was without jurisdiction and the appellant could not be convicted even for the offence which was mentioned in the sanction. The sanction was in the following terms: "Whereas I am satisfied that Jaswant Singh Patwari son of Gurdial Singh Kamboh of village Ajaibwali had accepted an illegal gratification of Rs. 50 in 5 currency notes of Rs. 10 denomination each from one Pal Singh son of S. Santa Singh of village Fatehpur Rajputan, Tehsil Amritsar for making a favourable report on an application for allotment of an ahata to S. Santa father of the said S. Pal Singh. And whereas the evidence available in this case clearly discloses that the said S. Jaswant Singh Patwari had committed an offence under S. 5 of the Prevention of Corruption Act. Now therefore, I. N. N. Kashyap, Esquire I. C. S. Deputy Commissioner, Asr, as required by S. 6 of the Prevention of Corruption Act of 1947 hereby sanction the prosecution of the said S. Jaswant Singh Patwari under S. 5 of the said Act." Section 6 (1) of the Act provides for sanction as follows: "No Court shall take cognizance of an offence punishable under S. 161 or S. 165 of the Indian Penal Code or under sub-S. (2) of S. 5 of this Act, alleged to have been committed by a public servant, except with the previous sanction." Section 5 (1) (a) relates to a case of a public servant if he habitually accepts illegal gratification and S. 5 (1) (d) if he obtains for himself any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage. The contention comes to this that as the sanction was only for receiving Rs. 50 as illegal gratification from Pal Singh and therefore an offence under S. 5 (1) (d) the prosecution, the charge and conviction should have been under that provision and had that been so there would have been no defect in the jurisdiction of the court trying the case nor any defect in the conviction but as the appellant was tried under the charge of being a habitual receiver of bribes and the sanction was only for one single act of receiving illegal gratification the trial was wholly void as it was a trial by a Court without jurisdiction.;