MANSUKHLAL VITHALDAS CHAUHAN Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant, who as Divisional Accountant, held a Class III Post, in the Medium Irrigation Project Division at Ankleshwar, Gujarat, was prosecuted for offences under Section 161, I.P.C. and Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, and was ultimately convicted and sentenced to two years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 15,000/- for the offence under Section 5(2) of the Act and another two years rigorous imprisonment for the offence under Section 161, I.P.C., by the trial Court, namely, Special Judge, Bharuch. This was upheld by the High Court in appeal.

(2.) Mr. U. R. Lalit, Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant has strenuously contended that the entire proceedings, namely, the proceedings before the trial Court as also the High Court are liable to be set aside as there was no valid sanction within the meaning of Section 6 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") with the consequence that the trial Court had no justification to take cognizance of these offences, much less try them. This contention is challenged by the counsel appearing on behalf of the State of Gujarat, who has contended that there was proper and valid sanction granted within the meaning of the Act and it was thereafer that the trial Court took cognizance of the offences and initiated the case which ultimately ended in the conviction of the appellant. The trial Court as also the High Court before whom the question of want of "sanction" was raised have held concurrently that there was proper sanction by the competent authority and, therefore, the appellant was rightly convicted particularly as the charges were proved against him.

(3.) In order to appreciate the controversy as regards "sanction", we may set out the following few facts.