STATE OF KERALA Vs. P V KRISHNAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The common questions involved in these appeals are (i) whether the court below was justified in acquitting the accused in the Calendar Cases against which the appeals are filed and (ii) whether the sanction order given by the Secretary, Vigilance Department to prosecute the accused in the above cases under Section 6 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") is legally correct or not.

(2.) The acquittal orders passed in the Calendar Cases were on the basis of the finding entered by the Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge, Kozhikde to the effect that the Secretary, Vigilance Department was not competent to issue the sanction order to prosecute the accused in the above cases. The grounds urged in the appeals are (i) the impugned orders are not sustainable on the ground that the trial Judge has no power to acquit the accused in view of the defective sanction granted by an incompetent officer and (ii) the trial Judge went wrong in proceeding with the case as the court below had already found that the sanction order was irregular.

(3.) The brief facts which led to the filing of the final charge against the accused are that while the accused were working as public servants in various capacities, they committed misconducts punishable under Section 5(1)(d) read with Section 5(2) of the Act and Sections 109 and 120 B I.P.C. Since the sanction orders produced by the prosecution were granted by the Secretary, Vigilance Department of the State, the court below acquitted the accused. Section 6 of the Act reads as follows: