RATAN PRAKASH GARG Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant Ratan Prakash Garg, who was employed as store-keeper-cum-well supervisor in the district of Bulandshahr, has been convicted under Section 161, I.P.C., and sentenced to one year's rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 500 and in default three months' further rigorous imprisonment by the Special Judge, Bulandshahr.

(2.) It has been contended before me on behalf of the appellant that the learned Special Judge had no jurisdiction to try the case as there was no sanction for the prosecution of the appellant as required under Section 6 of the Prevention of Corruption Act (Act II of 1947). This section runs as follows: No court shall take cognizance of an offence punishable under Section 161 or Section 165, I.P.C., or under Sub-section (2) of Section 5 of the this Act, alleged to have been committed by a public servant except with the previous santion

(3.) It will appear from the above section that previous sanction from the competent authority is a condition precedent to confer jurisdiction on any particular court to try a person accused of an offence under Section 161 or Section 165, I.P.C., or under Sub-section (2) of Section 5 of the Prevention of Corruption Act where the offence has been committed by a public servant. It is not disputed that the appellant is a public servant and the offence under Section 161, I.P.C., is alleged to have been committed in his capacity as such public servant. Learned Counsel for the State has not been able to satisfy me from the record that the required sanction had been obtained in the present case before the prosecution of the appellant on the aforesaid charge. In view of the above mandatory provision there can be no doubt that the learned Special Judge had no juricdiction to take cognizance of the offence under Section 161, I.P.C., against the appellant and as such, the entire proceedings are vitiated for want of jurisdiction.