STATE Vs. YASH PAL P S I

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a rule which I issued on the 14th June 1956 at the instance of the State against an order made by Special Jude I. M. Lal on the 21st April 1956.

(2.) THE opposite party Yash Pal who was a prosecuting Sub-Inspector was being tiled by the Special Judge for an offence under Section 5 (2) of the Prevention of corruption Act, and I am informed that two points were taken against the prosecution by the learned Judge himself: (11) that the sanction given under S 6 of the prevention of Corruption Act was bad in law. and (2) that the Indian Police Act wag no longer a valid Act as far as the State of the Punjab was concerned.

(3.) ON the first point the learned Jude referred to North West Frontier Province v. Suraj Narain Anand AIR 1949 PC 112 (A ). In the present case it is admitted by the opposite party that he was appointed by an Assistant Inspector-General of Police who ranks with the Superintendent of Poilce, and in the present case the sanction was given by the Deputy inspctor-General of Police Mr, Sham-sher Singh. Under section 6 (1) to - and the present case falls under this section-previous sanction has to be obtained from the authority competent to remove a public servant from his office. The appointment in the present case was by a person of the rank of a superintendent of Police and the sanction given is by a person who ranks higher than the Superintendent of Police, i. e. , the Deputy Inspector-General of Police. I do not think that any attack can be levelled on the ground of the sanction not being proper. In AIR 1949 PC J12 (A), a person was appointed by the Inspector-General Of Police but was dismissed by the Deputy Inspector-General of Police before the rule was changed in regard to the power of appointments and dismissals and their Lordships of the privy Council held that the dismissal was bad on that ground.