GULAB TULSYANI Vs. DELHI ADMN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, Gulab Tulsyani, a member of the Delhi Judicial Service, has challenged his prosecution for an offence under section 5(2) read with section 5 (1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act (for short 'the Act') and section 161 of the Indian Penal Code vide criminal case No. 16/87 by means of this Criminal Misc. (Main) petition filed under section 482 Criminal Procedure Code . Besides raising questions of fact, he contends that the sanction recorded by the Administrator of Delhi for his prosecution in terms of section 6 of the Act, was invalid and without jurisdiction for the reason that there was no recommendation of the High Court of Delhi or consultation with the same before recording of the sanction and that in view of the provisions of Article 235 of the Constitution of India, vesting absolute control in the High Court in respect to members of judicial service, the prosecution based on such a sanction was not sustainable, and liable to be quashed.

(2.) The petitioner has appeared in person. He was informed that no questions of fact which constituted his defence or factual arguments could be entertained. He then submitted that he wants to confine himself, so far as this petition is concerned, to the validity of the sanction for prosecution, relying on various Judgments, particularly, AIR 1986 S.C. 1814, Tej Pal Singh v. State of U.P. (1).

(3.) The matter has been heard for admission after notice. The entire stress by Mr. Tulsyani has been on the provisions of Article 235 of the Constitution to the effect that control over the District Courts and courts subordinate thereto shall be vested in the High Courts of the State. He argued that the expression "control" envisages every aspect such as disciplinary, judicial and administrative and that the decision regarding his prosecution had also to be taken by the High Court of Delhi and in the absence of that, the Administrtor of Delhi could not have sanctioned the prosecution, and that the order of sanction was without jurisdiction. He finally placed reliance on four Supreme Court judgments which are AIR 1966 S.C. 447. the State of West Bengal and another v. Nripendra Nath Bagchi, (2) AIR 1975 Punjab and Haryana 265, B. R. Guliani v. Punjab and Haryana High Court; (3) AIR 1976 S.C. 1841, State of Haryana v. Inder Prakash Anand and others, (4) and AIR 1986 S.C. "1814. Tejpal Singh v. State of U.P.