PARMANAND DASS versus STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

PARMANAND DASS

STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH September 15, 1978

[JASWANT SINGH AND P. S. KA!LASAM, JJ.]

Sanctioning authority for the purposes of Section 6 of the Preve11Jion of Corruption Act under the Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955 as aniended by Act II of 1970-Whether subsequent sancrion is invalid since an earlier sanction was held to be invalid.

The prosecution of the appellant, who '"as charged for having received an illegal gratification was held to be bad by the Special Judge, since the sanction for the prosecution under Section 6 of the Prevention of Corruption Act was granted by the Commissioner instead of the Standing Committee of the Hydera-bad Municipality. He was, therefore, reinstated in service and when the Com-missioner wrote again for the sanction, the Standing Committee recorded on 17-6-70 to drop the case on the ground that it was an old case and the appellant had already been reinstated in service.

The Hyderabad Municipal Corporation (Amendment) Act II of 1970 came into force on 27-6-70, under which provision was made for the appointment of special officer to exercise the powers, to perform the duties and discharge the functions of (a) the Corporation (b) the Standing Committee and ( c) the Commission under the Act. This provision was to be in force for period of two years with effect from 3-8-70 with further provision that it shall not be extended beyond 31-10-75.

After Act II of 1970 came into force, on 29-7-72 memor&11dum was sub-mitted in the nature of note to the Standing Committee to take fresh decision on the issue of prosecution of the appellant and for granting sanction to prosecute the appellant. On 15-5-73, the Standing Committee by its resolu-tion authorised the special officer to sign the sanction order and to send it to Anti-Corruption Bureau, Hyderabad. In pursuance of the resolufion, sanction order was passed on 16-6-73. On 29-11-73 the appellant was placed under suspension and on l 1-12-75, the special judge dismissed the. petitioner~s objections to the validity of th.!. sanction. The appellant filed the appeal by special leaver as the High Court dismissed his criminal revision petition.

Allowing the appea.l, the Court

HELD : 1. There can be no legal bar to the sanctioning authority revising its opinion before the sanction order is placed before the Court. The validity of the sanction can only be considered at the time when it is filed before the Special Judge. SUbsequent sanction having been given, in the present case, by the competent authority, the plea that the Stoo.ding Committee again considered the question but decided to drop the proceedings on the ground that it was an old case .and the appellant had already been reinstated in service cannot be accepted. [794D·F]

' ... .

I . I.) . . -~---. - ~--·--·

P. DASS v. A. P. STATE (Kailasam, . I.)

2. :The validity of thC sa~ction cannot be upheld, as the speCiat ~ffi.cer who is entitleJ. under the Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955 as amended by Act II of 1970, has not given the sanction as special officer or by himselt exerci~ing the po\1.'ers of the Standing Committee. but issued the sanction order . in pursU<Ulce of the sanction given by the Standing Committee by its resoIU.tiPn dt 15-5-1973. [796C-D] . -

CRllllNAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Crimi'nal Appeal No .. 482 of 1976.

Appeal by Special Leave from the Judgment ·dated 20-1-1976 of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Criminal Revision Case No. 18 of 1976.

R. V. Pillai am! H. K. Puri for !he Appellant.

P. Parmeshwara Rao and G. N. Rao for the Respondent.

The Judgment of th~ Court was delivered by ·c-·-

KAILASAM, J. This appeal is by sp~cial leave against tbe judgment of Andhra Pradesh High Court, in Criminal Revision No. 18 of 1976 holding tbat tbe sanction order given for prosecuting the appellant is va~id and dismissing his Revision Petition.

The appellant Parmanand Dass, was appointed as clerk in Hyderabad Municipal Corporation on 15-1-1951 in the scale of Rs. 40-50 and was promoted to the scale of Rs. 50-105 on 1-9-1956. charge of having received an illegal gratificatio·n of Rs. 15 /- was brought ag;inst him and .he was. suspended on 22-9-1966. On 27-5-1967, _the Commissioner of tbe Municipal Corporation ghve sa'nc-tion for prosecution under section 6 of the Prevention of Corruption Act. The appellant questioned the validity of the sanction on the ground that the Commissioner was not the competent authority to grant the san•tion. The Special Judge accepted tbe contention and found that the Standi·ag Committee of the Municipality alone can giv•o sanction ahd as_ the Commissioner had no po\vers, the Sanction \Vas not valid. Soon -after on 4-5-1970, the appellant prayed for his reinstatement, and on 12-6-1970, the appellant was reinstated. The Commisisoncr on 17-6-1970 again wrote_ to the Standing Committee seeking for fresh sanction-On 27-6, 1979, the Stand:ng Committee resclved to drop tho case oa the ground that it was an old case and that the appellant had already been reinstated in service.

On 27-6-1970, Act II of 1970 came into force. The Act provided that the ;pecial officer appoihted under the Act will eio~rcise the powers of the Standi:ag Committee of the Municipal Corporation. After tbe Act came into force on 29-7-1972 memorandum in the nature of

' [,. ]

[1979] 1 s.c.R.

note to the Standing Committee was prepared requesting the Standing Committee to take fresh decision on_ the issue of prosecution of the appellant, ahd for granting saTiction to prosecute the appellant On 15-5-1973, the Standing Committee by its resolution authorised the Special Officer to sign the sanction order and to send it to the Anti-corruption _Bureau, Hyderabad. In pursuance of the resolution, sanction order was passed ro 16-6-1973. On 29-11-1973, the appel-lant was placed under suspension. On 11-12-1975, the Special Judge dismissed the petitioner's objection to the validity of the sanction.· The appellant filed Criminal Revision No. 18 of 1976 before the High Court against the order of Special Judge and the High Court dismissed the Revision Petition on 20-1-1976, a.,d this appeal by special leave is against that order.

It _was submitted that having once declined to_ grant_ sanction, subsequent Standing Committee cannot grant sanction on the same facts. It was crotended that ,the grant of sanction by the Special Officer was not boiia fide and was due to ulterior motive. -We do not see any merit in any of these submissions. Sanction given by the Commissioner was rightly rejected by the Special Judge on the ground that the Com-missioner was not competent to grant the sanctiro. This could not prevent -subsequent sahction being given by the Competent Autho-rity, but the plea of the learned cmmsel was that the Standing Com-mittee again considered the question but decided to drop the proceed-i-::igs on the ground that it was an o!d case and the accused had already been reinstated in service. There could be no objection to the Stahd-ing Committee again reconsidering its decision. The validity of the sanction can only be considered at the time when it is filed before the Special Judge. We find that there could be no legal bar to the 5a:ic-tio"ning authority revising its own opinion befort< the. sanction order is placed before the CourtOn consideration of the record ~hich ultimately resulted in the order of the sanction, we find however that the sanction order ca:inot be held to be in accordance with the law. It was on 27-6-1970, the Standing Committee resolved to drop further proceedings. - On the same day, Act II of 1970 came into force. Under section 2 of the Hyderabad Municipal Corporations (Amendment) Act, 1970, which came into force on 27th June 1970, it was provided that notwith~tand­ing anything contained in the Hyckrabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955, there shall be appointed by the State Goverhment, by notifica-tion in the Andhra Pradesh Gazette; Special Officer to exercise the powers, to perform the duties and discharge the functions of-

( a) the Corporation;

P. DASS v. A. P. STATE (Kailasam, !.)

(b) the Standing Committee; and

( c) ~ Commissioner.

This provision was to be in force for period of two years with effect from 3rd August, 1970, ·with provision that it shall not be extended beyond 31st October, 1975. It is not disputed before us that the Amelldment Act was not extended to cover the period in question. After the. introduction of the amending Act, Special Officer was appointed by the State Government by notification in the Andhra Pradesh Gazette. The Sp,cial Officer was to exercise the powers and perform the duties and discharge the functions of the Standing Com-mittee. After the date of coming into force of the Amellding Act, tire Special Officer can himself give sanction as he is empowered to dis-charge the functions of th., Standing Committee. What happened this case was tliat on 29-7-1972 note was prepared and submitted to the Standing Committee which is ~igned by- one M. Narsing Rao, for Special Officer. The note requested the Standing Com-mittee to take fresh decision on the issue for prosecuting Shri Parmanand Dass for accepting illegal gratification under .Section 6( 1) (c) of the Prevention of Corruption j\ct 1947. The Stand-ing Committee on 15·5-1973, after stating that the Standing Com-mittee of the Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad is the authority to remove Parmanand Dass from his office and that after fully considering and examining the materials placed before it, it was of the view that the appellant should be prosecuted in court of law for the said offence, accorded sanction under .section 6(1) (c) of the Prevention of Corruption Act · 194 7. draft sanction order was ·signed by the Special Officer, Municipal Corporatioll of Hyderabad with note that he is the officer authorii;.,d by the Standing Committee of the Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad to sign the sanction order. After the coming into force of Act IT of 1970, the Special Officer is entitled to exerci>e powers, perform the duties and dii;.charge the func-tion• of the Standing Committee. If the Special Officer acting as the St'1llding Committee had given the sanction there would have •been no flaw in the procedure but in this case what we find is, that note is prepared for the Standing Committee by one Narsing Rao signing on behalf of the Special Officer and the Standing Committee purporting to act as the Standing Committee, gran.ting sanction 0':1 16-6-1973. When asked to explain as to what was the pr9redure that. was adopted by the Special Officer and the Standing Committee, and whether the Standing Committee. was functioning apart frail! the Special Officer, Mr. Parmeshwar Rao, learned counsel appearing for the State of k::tdhra Pradesh, submitted that the Special Officer is himself the Standing

Committee and that the· note was sent to the Standing Commitcoe !hat was Special Officer himself and that he, as the Standing Committee, gave the sanction. We fi.nd it difficult to accept this explanation, for, the High Court proceeded on the basis that by the resolutioa dated 15-5-1973, the Standing Committee accorded sanction under section 6 (1) ( c) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and authorised the Special Officer to sign the order according sanction and accordingly the Special Officer issued the order dated 16-6-1973. It appears. before the High Court, the parties proceeded on the basis that the Standing Committee accorded sanction on 15-5-1973 a'nd authorised the Special Officer to sign the order and accordingly the Special Officer issued the sanction order. The draft order of the Standing Committe·~ which is signed by the Special Officer states that he is the officer authorised by the Standing Committee. The plea of the learned counsel for the State that the Standrng Committee and the Special Officer are one and the same is difficult to accept in the circumstances. As the Sp~cial Officer who is entitled under the Act has not given the sanction as Special Officer or by himself exercising the powers of the Standing Committee but issued the sanction order in pursuance of the sa·nction given by the Standing Committee, we are unable to uphold th~ validity of the sanc-tion. On this ground we accept the appeal, set aside the order of the High Court and hold that the sanction granted by order dated I 6-6-1973 is not valid in law.

Appeal allowed.