STATE Vs. HARBANS LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal by the State against the decision of the learned Special Judge acquitting the accused of a charge for the offence of criminal misconduct in discharge of offcial duty punishable under Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. The appeal was originally heard by a Division Bench consisting of two of us, namely. Hardy and Deshpande JJ The arguments at the Bar before the Division Bench were limited only to the aspects of the case which were dealt with in the judgment of the learned Special Judge under appeal. In writing the judgment, however, the Division Bench had to consider several other aspects of the case including the following questions of law :- "(1) 'What is the precise nature and effect of the presumption raised by section 4(1) of Prevention of Corruption Act ? (2) Whether the High Court can convict the respondent under sections 161 and 165, Indian Penal Code, though he was acquitted by learned Special Judge of the Charge purported to have beenframed against him only under section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act ? (3) Whether the sanction to prosecute parporting to be under section 6(1) (e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act but without mentioning the names of the offences was valid because the facts constituting the offences had been considered by the sanctioning authority-"

(2.) Though the answers suggested to the above questionsof law in the jugdment of the Division Bench speaking through Deshpande J.were clear enough, the Division Bench referred the case to the Full Bench on the 27th September, 1968 mainly for the following reasons :- The decisions of these questions would affect a large number of pending and future eases and would also serve as guidance to the authorities concerned. The learned counsel would thereby get a full opportunity to have their say as to these questions. Further certain observations made by another Division Bench of this Court to which one of us namely. Hardy J. was a party in Criminal Appeal No. 88 D of 1964 (Delhi Administration Delhi v. Shri S. P. Kohli, Deputy Municipal Engineer,) decided on 8th February, 1968, would have to be reconsidered in the light of the observations made in the referring order in this case and this could be done only by a larger Bench.

(3.) On this reference, therefore, we heard the learned counsel on all the aspects of the case including the above questions of law. We are in full agreement with the findings of the Division Bench on the various issues of fact and law tentatively arrived at in the referring older which also contains a full discussion of the facts, evidence and the statute law and the case law. We do not, therefore, consider it necessary to go over the same ground again. We would only like to reconsider the following observations made by the Division Bench in the decision in Delhi Admi ministration, Delhi v. S P. Kohli Deputy Municipal Engineer, referring to 4(1) of the Prevention of Corruption Act :- I. C. A No. 88U of 1984.