BHUP NARAIN SAXENA Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application under Section 561A read with Section 435, Criminal P. C. for the setting aside of the charge and the entire proceedings in Sessions Trial No. 77 of 1950 and the convictions and sentences in Sessions Trials NOS. 76 and 78 of 1950.

(2.) The applicant was prosecuted for offences under Sections 409, 420, 465, 468, 471 and 477A, Penal Code, in three cases. He was duly committed in all the three cases. Two of these cases ended in his conviction under Section 467 read with Section 471 and Section 420, Penal Code. The applicant filed appeals against his convictions and sentences before the Sessions Judge of Gorakhpur. His appeals are pending. The third caae is pending in the Sessions Court.

(3.) The ground for the prayer for action under Section 561A is that the Court could not have taken cognizance of the offences in the absence of sanction as required by Section 6, Prevention of Corruption Act (Act II [2] of 1947) It is admitted that the applicant has not been prosecuted for any offence to which that Act applies and for which sanction is necessary. The contention seems to be that the conduct could have amounted to an offence to be dealt with under that Act, that he should have been prosecuted for that offence and that such prosecution could not have been launched without sanction.