BAL KRISHAN Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant who was a Patwari and has been convicted by the Special Judge, Jalandhar, under section 5(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, (for short, the Act) and under Section 161 of the Indian Penal Code on August 11, 1984, impugns the said conviction on the ground that there was no valid sanction for his prosecution as envisaged by Section 6 of the Act. In view of the precise legal question raised, I do not feel the necessity of going into the details of the case.

(2.) IT is not in dispute that the appellant was initially appointed as a Sub Inspector in the Consolidation Department of the erstwhile State of Pepsu by the Consolidation Commissioner on July 7, 1953. As at certain stage subsequent to the merger of the States of Pepsu and Punjab, some officials of the Consolidation Department, including the appellant were rendered surplus and were likely to be retrenched, the State Government issued Memo No. 1066 -CH(IV) -76/5378, dated February 27, 1976, to the various Deputy Commissioners in the State and to the Director, Consolidation of Holdings, Punjab, Jullundur, that the said 'likely to be retrenched employees" be relieved form the Consolidation Department on the issuance of the appointment orders by the respective Deputy Commissioner qua them. A copy of the relevant extract of this Memo. is Exhibit PD on the records of this case. The petitioner's name figures at No. 16 in this Memo. As per the statement of P.W. 3. Ram Murti Bill Clerk, Revenue, from the office of the Sub Divisional Officer, (Civil), Phillaur - who deposed in the light of appellant's service record -he as a matter of fact joined as Patwari in this District on March 30, 1976, in pursuance of the above -noted Memo. Exhibit PD. The allegation which has been have taken to have been established against him by the trial Court is that on July 20, 1982, he accepted an illegal gratification of Rs. 100 from Gurbaksh Singh P.W. 8. for the supply of a copy of the Jamabandi (Exhibit PJ) to him. The requisite sanction for this prosecution as envisaged by section 6 of the Act was granted by the Collector of the District vide Exhibit PA.

(3.) THE solitary submission of Mr. Gill, the learned counsel for the appellant is that since the appellant had been appointed as a Sub Inspector (Patwari) in the Consolidation Department by the Consolidation Commissioner, Pepsu, the sanction granted by the Collector vide Exhibit PA is of no consequence and in the absence of a valid sanction the lower Court could not take cognizance of the case and his resultant conviction stands vitiated. As against this, the stand of Mr. Seron, the learned Assistant Advocate General, is that the appellant having been absorbed in the Revenue Department in pursuance of the Memo. of the Government Exhibit PD, the Collector of the District was the competent authority to grant the requisite sanction in view of rule 9 of the Punjab Revenue Patwaris, Class III Service, Rules, 1966. This rule lays down that appointments to the posts in the service, meaning thereby, the Punjab Revenue Patwaris, Class III Service, shall be made by the Collector. After giving my thoughtful consideration to the entire matter in the light of the submissions of the learned counsel, I, however, find no merit in the stand of Mrs. Saron.