K JAYARAMA IYER Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a petition to revise the order of the District Magistrate, Hyderabad City, dated 22nd December, 1955. The short point for determination is, whether the learned Magistrate was right in holding that the sanction purporting to have been given by the Central Government on 19th November, 1951, signed by the Secretary to the Government of India in Ministry of Communications is a legal, valid and proper sanction sufficient in law to give jurisdiction to the Magistrate to try the accused-petitioner for the offence as alleged in the charge-sheet filed on 13th October, 1952. To appreciate the argument advanced it is necessary to state the facts as mentioned in the challan which reads as follows :

(2.) Then follows the schedule of property in respect of which offences are said to have been committed and which is in complete accord with schedule B attached to the challan. The sanction thus accorded is signed by Sri A. V. Pai as Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Communications. On the facts of the case, the trial Magistrate found that the sanction for prosecution was necessary and that the sanction obtained is valid and sufficient in law. The challenge in this revision mainly lies to the last mentioned finding. It is argued that the sanction purporting to be given by the Central Government is neither in fact given by the said Government nor is it expressed in the form prescribed by law. Section 197, Criminal Procedure Code, reads thus :

(3.) That if sanction was necessary for the prosecution of the accused, it must necessarily be of the Central Government admits of no doubt. The prosecution has in fact by way of abundant caution obtained the sanction of both the Governments. The accused belongs to the Indian Postal Service, Class I. The Government of India in the Ministry of Communications placed his services at the disposal of the Government of Hyderabad and the Government of Hyderabad then appointed him as the Postmaster-General of Hyderabad. This post he held only upto 31st March, 1950. He then proceeded on leave and on the date of sanction he had already reverted to his former post. Under section 197 (a), Criminal Procedure Code, the permission of the Central Government was thus necessary to give jurisdiction to the Magistrate to try him for the offence alleged to have been committed as a public servant and this was obtained as stated above. The language is clear that the Central Government has sanctioned the institution of proceedings against the accused for the offence with which he is charged. But the form in which it is expressed has been seriously commented upon by the learned counsel. It is argued that the sanction should have been expressed in the name of the President after it is granted by the President himself. The expression'Central Government' is not defined in the Code. This term, according to section 8 (b) of the General Clauses Act (Act X of 1897) shall, in relation to anything done or to be done after the commencement" of the Constitution, mean