Research › Browse › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

1956 DIGILAW 331 (ALL)

State v. Nathi Lal

1956-10-16

DAYAL, JAMES

body1956
JUDGMENT James, J. - Nathi Lal, a Panch of the Adalati Panchayat of Aira Khera in the district of Mathura, was tried for an offence u/s 161, IPC on the charge that on the 27-7-1950 he accepted the sum of Rs. 30 as illegal gratification from one Pitambar Singh who was an accused in a case under the Gambling Act pending before the Panchayat. In defending himself he pleaded that he had taken the money, not as a bribe, but by way of advance payment of the fine which was proposed to be imposed; he also contended that the sanction for his prosecution was invalid. The Magistrate repelled both the defence, found him guilty and sentenced him to two years' rigorous imprisonment together with a fine of Rs. 400. In appeal the learned Temporary Sessions Judge of Mathura upheld the Magistrate's view on the question of sanction, but holding that the prosecution had failed to establish the acceptance of a bribe acquitted Nathi Lal. The State Government have come up in appeal against the order of acquittal. 2. It has not been necessary for us to enter into the merits of the case as the appeal can be decided on the question of sanction. 3. It is common ground that by virtue of Section 6(1) of the Prevention of Corruption Act no court can take cognizance of the Respondent's alleged offence u/s 161, IPC without the previous sanction of the authority competent to remove him from his office of Panch. It is further acknowledged that the Rules which were framed under the Panchayat Raj Act of 1947 and were in force at the relevant time had made the Director of Pachayats the prescribed authority to remove a Panch from office. Accordingly we turn to see whether or not there was a valid sanction by the Director for the Respondent's prosecution. 4. The only evidence on the point that we can discover from the record is a letter dated the 7-12-1950, marked Ex. P-7, which purports to be from the Director of Panchayats to the District Magistrate of Mathura. Accordingly we turn to see whether or not there was a valid sanction by the Director for the Respondent's prosecution. 4. The only evidence on the point that we can discover from the record is a letter dated the 7-12-1950, marked Ex. P-7, which purports to be from the Director of Panchayats to the District Magistrate of Mathura. We quote it in full: With reference to your letter no 240/ XVIII-152/50 dated 14-10-1950, I am directed to say that the Governor has u/s 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, read with Section 6 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, sanctioned the prosecution of Shri Nathi Lal, Panch, on the charge u/s 161, Indian Penal Code, of accepting illegal gratification in connection with a gambling case filed in his Panchayati Adalat. 5. The solitary witness examined by the prosecution in an attempt to prove this letter was the Office Superintendent of the Mathura Collectorate. He did not say a word about recognising the signature of the author of the letter; all that he said was that he opens the incoming mail and that he received this letter on the 11-12-1950. It is surprising that the prosecution made no attempt to produce, still less to prove, the District Magistrate's letter of the 14-10-1950 referred to in Ex. P-7. Nor did the Office Superintendent give any account of the contents of the District Magistrate's letter aforesaid. Of even greater surprise is the fact that the District Magistrate had himself appeared as a witness for the prosecution, but said not a word about what he wrote to the Director of Panchayats. 6. It is well settled that where the law prescribes sanction as a condition precedent to a prosecution the court must not only be satisfied that the required sanction has been accorded but that the sanctioning authority has accorded it after applying its mind to the facts constituting the offence. In the recent case of Madan Mohan Singh Vs. 6. It is well settled that where the law prescribes sanction as a condition precedent to a prosecution the court must not only be satisfied that the required sanction has been accorded but that the sanctioning authority has accorded it after applying its mind to the facts constituting the offence. In the recent case of Madan Mohan Singh Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1954 SC 637 their Lordships of the Supreme Court, relying on the decision of the Privy Council in AIR 1948 82 (Privy Council) have held that the burden of proving that the requisite sanction has been obtained rests on the prosecution and such burden includes proof that the sanctioning authority had given the sanction in reference to the facts on which the proposed prosecution was to be based; these facts may appear on the face of the sanction or may be proved by extraneous evidence. Their Lordships have further laid down that where the facts constituting the offence do not appear on the face of the letter sanctioning the prosecution, it is incumbent upon the prosecution to prove by other evidence that the material facts constituting the offence were placed before the sanctioning authority. Where this is not done, the sanction/may be held to be defective, and an invalid sanction cannot confer jurisdiction upon the court to try the case. 7. From what we have observed earlier it is clear that these rules of law have been contravened in the instant case. There is nothing on the record to indicate what information the District Magistrate gave to the Director of Panchayats regarding the Respondent's alleged offence. The Director's letter of sanction does not mention what facts were before him when he accorded sanction, nor have the prosecution made any attempt to prove from extraneous evidence that the material facts constituting the offence were placed before the Director. Plainly it cannot be said that the Director had occasion to apply his mind to the facts of the case, from which it follows that he was not competent to give a valid sanction. It has been suggested that the District Magistrate's letter ot the 14-10-1950 must have contained sufficient facts to enable the Director to apply his mind to the material facts and to reach an independent opinion on the desirability of giving sanction for the Res0pondent's prosecution. It has been suggested that the District Magistrate's letter ot the 14-10-1950 must have contained sufficient facts to enable the Director to apply his mind to the material facts and to reach an independent opinion on the desirability of giving sanction for the Res0pondent's prosecution. We consider this argument to be of a purely speculative nature. There is no presumption that the District Magistrate's letter contained the relevant information for all that we know it might have contained nothing more than a bald request for sanction; or it might have contained insufficient facts. In any event, as the Supreme Court have ruled unequivocally, the burden of proving the validity of the sanction rests on the prosecution, and where, as in the case before us, the prosecution have failed to discharge this burden the sanction is deemed to be invalid and takes away the court's jurisdiction to try the case. 8. Holding therefore that the prosecution have failed to prove that there was a valid sanction for the Respondent's prosecution u/s 161, IPC we are of opinion that the trial Magistrate wrongly assumed jurisdiction over the alleged offence. It follows that the appeal fails on the issue of sanction. It is accordingly dismissed.