BIHARI LAL GUPTA Vs. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Special Judge, Mandi, vide his judgment dated 30-4-1981 convicted the present appellant under section 5(1)(c) read with Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') and sentenced him to rigorous, imprisonment for one year and also to pay a fine of Rs. 200/-. Vide the same judgment the learned Special Judge convicted the appellant under sections 420 and 468 IPC and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and also to pay a fine of Rs. 100/- on each count. Feeling aggrieved, the appellant has approached this Court in appeal under section 374 Cr.P.C.

(2.) THE charge under section 5(1)(c) of the Act of which the appellant was convicted was founded on the allegations that the appellant in his capacity as a public servant while posted as Accounts Clerk in the Hydel Investigation Division No. III, Mandi and in such capacity entrusted with Rs. 213.95 pertaining to the T.A. Bill of Shri I.D. Gupta, Overseer, had on 23rd October, 1969 dishonestly and fraudulently misappropriated or otherwise converted to his own use the proceeds of the said T.A. Bill. The charge under section 420 IPC was founded on the allegations that on or about the same time and place, the appellant had cheated the Executive Engineer, Hydle Investigation Division No. Ill. by dishonestly inducing him to deliver Rs. 213.95 to the appellant and which was the property of the said Executive Engineer. The third charge under section 468 IPC was founded on the allegations that the appellant had on or about aforesaid date and place forged an entry in the bill register of his office showing that the T.A. bill of Rs. 213.95 had been returned by the Treasury Officer with some objection though the amount of that T.A. bill had actually been encashed by the appellant.

(3.) THE point of law raised by the learned Counsel for the appellant is that the entire trial as also the conviction of the appellant is bad for want of a valid sanction under section 6 or the Act which was a pre-requisite for the prosecution of the appellant. It is by now well settled that in the absence of a valid sanction under section of the Act, the entire proceedings are rendered void abinitio and any conviction recorded in such proceedings would he without jurisdiction and a nullity. The point, therefore which has been raised by the learned counsel for the appellant and which calls for consideration is whether there was any valid sanction accorded by the competent authority in the instant case for the prosecution of the appellant.