- (1.) The appellant has been convicted under Section 5 (2) read with Section 5 (1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 (for short "the Act") and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year. He filed an appeal, but the High Court dismissed the appeal by confirming the conviction and sentence. Hence, he has come up to this Court under Article 136 of the constitution by special leave.
(2.) The appellant was the Supply Inspector in the Department of Food and civil Supplies in the State of Uttar Pradesh. On 11-8-1977 a trap was arranged on the information furnished by PW 1, a fair price shop dealer in sugar, who told the Vigilance Authorities that the appellant was demanding rs. 200 as bribe. It is the prosecution case that the trap became successful and the marked currency notes were recovered from the left pocket of the appellant.
(3.) The main point canvassed before us is that no sanction has been accorded by the competent authority for instituting the prosecution and therefore the Special Court had no jurisdiction to take cognizance of the offence at all. Though this point was raised before the High Court it was curtly skipped off with the following observations: "This is irrelevant for the present case because for trial of offence under Section 5 (1) (d) of the Act, sanction is not necessary. Section 6 only prohibits commencement of trial for offence punishable under section 161 or Section 164 or Section 165 IPC or under sub-section (2) or sub-section (3) (a) of Section 5 of the Act without sanction. The present case is under Section 5 (1) (d) and hence it is immaterial to find out as to who was the appointing authority of the accused appellant. ";