T C LOGANATHAN Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant in this appeal is challenging the conviction and sentence imposed on him by the learned Special Judge for CBI cases (X Additional Sessions Judge, Chennai) made in C. C. No. 136/97 by the judgment dated 22. 10. 1998, convicting and sentencing the appellant under the following offences: i)Under Section 409 IPC - Five years R. I. and Rs. 5,000/-fine i/d 6 months R. I. ii)Under Section 420 IPC - Three years R. I. and rs. 3,000/- fine i/d 3 months R. I. iii)Under Section 477-A IPC - Three years R. I. and rs. 3,000/- fine i/d 3 months R. I. iv)Under Section 477-A IPC - Three years R. I. and rs. 3,000/- fine i/d 3 months R. I. v)Under Section 420 IPC - Three years R. I. and Rs. 3,000/-fine i/d 3 months R. I. vi)Under Section 467 IPC - Five years R. I. and Rs. 5,000/-fine i/d 6 months R. I. vii)Under Section 468 IPC - Three years R. I. and rs. 3,000/- fine i/d 3 months R. I. viii)Under Section 471 r/w 465 IPC - One year R. I. and rs. 1,000/- fine i/d 1 month R. I. ix)Under Section 201 IPC - Two years R. I. and Rs. 2,000/-fine i/d 2 months R. I. x)Under Section 13 (1) (c) & (d) r/w. 13 (2) of PC Act -Two years R. I. and Rs. 2,000/- fine i/d 2 months R. I.

(2.) THE learned Trial Judge also ordered sentence to run concurrently for the first nine charges and separately for the tenth charge.

(3.) IT is pointed out by the learned Senior Counsel that p. W. 1, Viz. Vigilance Officer of Indian Overseas Bank, Head Office, Chennai has accorded the Sanction Order, Ex. P. 4. P. W. 1 has categorically stated in his evidence that he is the Disciplinary Authority against the accused as per the bipartite Settlement dated 14. 12. 1966 and its subsequent amendments. At the outset, the learned Senior Counsel contended vehemently that P. W. 1, Vigilance officer, is not at all competent to accord sanction as he is not empowered with the power to appoint or remove the accused. IT is also further contended by the learned Senior Counsel that the prosecution placed reliance on Ex. P. 1 to ex. P. 3, viz. , Notice of Circular of nomination of Disciplinary Authorities dated 23. 03. 1988 (Ex. P. 1), the Industrial Relations Department Notice containing permanent circular dated 23. 03. 1988 in respect of the operational instructions dated 10. 04. 1990 (Ex. P. 2), and the certificate dated 27. 02. 1995 issued to P. W. 1 empowering him to act as Disciplinary Authority in the matter relating to domestic enquiries as per their Circular No. 200/88 dated 23. 03. 1988 and No. 1/90-91 dated 10. 04. 1990 issued by industrial Relations Department (Ex. P. 3 ). The certificate, Ex. P. 3 further discloses that P. W. 1 was attached to enquiry Cell of Vigilance Department since 14. 06. 1989. IT is further contended by the learned Senior counsel placing reliance on the above said documents, viz. Exs. P. 1 to P. 3, that the power of sanction has been conferred only to the general Manager who is the appointing authority as per the provisions of prevention of Corruption Act and that power to sanction cannot be applicable to other officers. The learned Senior Counsel also pointed out in his contention as stated above, that P. W. 1 categorically stated even in his chief examination that the power to appoint the accused is vested with the General Manager and the same was delegated to P. W. 1 who was the Vigilance Officer. The learned senior Counsel vehemently contended that the said delegation of power is illegal and also placed reliance on a decision of the Apex Court in Bk. Sardari lal Vs. Union of India and Others reported in AIR 1971 SC 1547. The learned senior Counsel also, by placing reliance on the above said judgment, submitted that P. W. 1 cannot be the sanctioning authority and any sanction given by him is not valid in the eye of law.