R J SINGH AHULLUWALIA Vs. STATE OF DELHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The sole point requiring determination by this Court in this appeal by special leave is whether the appellant's prosecution was sanctioned by the competent authority. In the High Court also this was the only question canvassed on behalf of the appellant. The facts necessary for appreciating the point raised briefly stated are these:

(2.) The sanction (Ex PL) which has been held to be valid by the High Court was signed by Shri K. Raja Ram, Deputy Secretary to the Government of India and was granted on August 25, 1967 by the Ministry of Industrial Development and Company Affairs (Department of Industrial Development).

(3.) The appellant's learned counsel asked for permission to raise a new point in challenge of this sanction. This new point sought to attack the sanction on two-fold ground. In the first instance he contended that this sanction was granted for prosecution under S. 6 (1) (c) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and not under Section 6 (1) (a). Secondly, it was contended that in the case of the appellant it was only the Home Department of the Government of India which could sanction the prosecution. This argument was founded on the Gazette Notification No. S. G. 2494 dated 3-8-1965 which amended the Government of India (Allocation of Business) Rules 1961 pursuant to the powers conferred on the President by cl. (3) of Art. 77 of the Constitution. This ground of challenge had, of course, not been raised in either of the two courts below but since it went to the root of the case, being a jurisdictional point we considered it just and proper to allow it to be raised. We accordingly adjourned the hearing on July 21, 1970 to enable the counsel for the State to obtain instructions on this point and to inquire whether the Home Ministry had sanctioned the appellant's prosecution. On August 5, 1970, the next date of hearing, Shri Sachthey stated at the Bar that the Home Ministry had not sanctioned the appellant's prosecution and it was conceded before us that in the absence of such sanction the prosecution must fail. In view of what has just been stated the appeal cannot but succeed and allowing the same we set aside the appellant's conviction and sentence. The appellant is stated to be on bail. His bail bond is to be deemed to be cancelled.