STATE OF MAHARASHTRA Vs. VISHWAKANT SHRIKANT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an application for revision of an order passed by the Special Judge, Greater Bombay, that the proceedings, which were before him in regard to an offence under Section 161 of the Penal Code committed by one Vishwa-kant Shrikant Pandit, were void for want of sanction under Section 6 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947.

(2.) THE opponent, who was a public servant at the time when he is alleged to have committed the offence, was no longer in service at the time when the learned Special Judge passed his order, and the learned Special Judge has passed it upon the footing that at the time when cognizance was taken in the present case, the opponent, who has been dismissed from service, was no longer in service. The learned Special Judge held that sanction was necessary under the provisions of Section 6 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, which runs as follows:

(3.) NOW, one can understand the contention that there is something to be said in favour of giving protection to public servant's in regard to prosecution of the offence mentioned in Section 6 (1), even after they have ceased to be in service. But one thing which must be ncted is that prior to the enactment of Section 6 (1), even a public servant, who was in service, enjoyed no protection in regard to the offences under Section 161 or Section 165, two of the offences with which Section 6 (1) deals. The third offence with which it deals was actually created by the Prevention of Corruption Act itself. It is quite true that the Prevention of Corruption Act widened the scope of the offences which could be committed by a public servant. It created for the first time the offence of criminal misconduct in discharge of official duty defined by Section 5. It at the same time granted for the first time public servants the protection enacted in Section 6 (1 ). That was that they were not liable to be prosecuted, except upon sanction accorded by the authority mentioned in the section. It is contended, therefore, en behalf of the opponent that we should not approach the question of the construction of Section 6 (1) from the point of view that there was no sanction necessary in respect of the acts dealt with by that section which were already offences before the Prevention of Corruption Act was enacted. Even though there is force in this contention, it is necessary to remember that the Act itself is a Prevention of Corruption Act, and its object was the more effective prevention of bribery and corruption. While bearing in mind, therefore, that it was considered desirable that there should be given to a public servant protection from frivolous or vexatious prosecution, we ought not to extend the protection to persons, who are no longer ill service, unless the wording of that section makes such an interpretation absolutely necessary.