NAND LAL SRIVASTAVA Vs. REX

JUDGEMENT

(1.) NAND Lal Srivastava has filed this revision application against his conviction and sentence for an offence under Section 161, Penal Code. The applicant was convicted by a Magistrate, First Class, and sentenced to one year's rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1,000. On appeal, the learned Additional Sessions Judge of Benares affirmed the conviction but reduced the amount of fine from Rs. 1,000 to Rs. 500.

(2.) IN this revision various points of law were argued on behalf of the applicant to show that his conviction was not justified and was liable to be set aside. I need only deal one point which goes to the root of the case as it affects the jurisdiction of the Magistrate to take cognisance of the case.

(3.) IT has been urged on behalf of the applicant that there is no proof that a valid sanction under Section 6, Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, was granted by any competent authority in respect of this offence and, therefore, the learned Magistrate was not competent to take cognisance of this offence. The record shows that the prosecution filed a letter purporting to be from the Traffic Manager, O.T. Railway, addressed to Shri Shambhu Nath, Superintendent of Police in charge of Anti -Corruption Department, U.P. Lucknow, and relied on this letter to show that sanction had been granted for the prosecution of the applicant for this offence under this letter. The letter does say that permission is given for the prosecution of Nand Lal, Loading Foreman, Benares City and for the suspension of Jogendra Prasad. This letter does not, however, say for what offence the Traffic Manager granted the sanction. The prosecution did not give any other extraneous evidence either to show what facts were put before the Traffic Manager on the basis of which he granted this permission for the prosecution of the applicant. It was essential for the prosecution to show that this sanction related to the acts committed by the applicant in respect of which this prosecution was launched against him. This has not been done and the letter purporting to contain the sanction also does not show that the sanction was in respect of these very acts. Prosecution in such a case must, therefore, be deemed to be without proper sanction and hence it must be held that the Magistrate had no jurisdiction to take cognisance of this case. This view is fully supported by the case of Gokulchand Dwarkadas v. The King, 1948 ALJ 170 : (AIR 1948 PC 82 : 49 Cr LJ 261). This case was further followed by the Madras case, In re : I.V. Subba Rao, AIR 1949 Mad 710 : (1949 -1 MLJ 600).