STATE Vs. MOHD RAZA BEG

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE important question arising for consideration in this case is whether the Prevention of Corruption Act, 2006 (herinafter called as The Act) bestows power on the appropriate authority to add, alter, or supersede an order of sanction made under section 6 of the Act,

(2.) THE question has arisen like this. The accused -respondent was a Government servant employed in the police Department of the State. It was alleged that he accepted a sum of Rs. 100/ - as illegal gratification from one, Mohamad Ramzan Shalla, for showing undue favour to him in the discharge of his public duties. The appropriate authority considered the matter and permitted his prosecution under Section 5 (2) of the Act, On the basis of this sanction, the court of Special Judge also subsequently took cognizance of the offence against him. While the trial was in progress, the appropriate authority issued a revised order of sanction sanctioning his prosecution for offences under sections 161 RPC and Section 5 (3) of the Act. On the basis of this sanction, the prosecution moved an application for amendment of the charge. They wanted section 161 R. P. C. also to be included in the charge. The learned Special Judge has dis -allowed the application holding that the appropriate authority was not competent to issue the revised sanction nor even the court had otherwise power to amend the charge,

(3.) THE Act does not expressly empower the appropriate authority to add to, alter, or supersede an order of sanction made under section 6 of the Act The argument of the learned Counsel appearing for the state, however is that the power is available under Section 21 of the General Clauses Act. Section 21 of the Act, provides, that where, by and Act or Regulation, a power to issue notification, orders, rules, or bye -laws is conferred then, that power includes a power, exercisable in the like manner and subject to the like sanction and conditions (if any) to add to, amend, vary or rescind, any notification, order, rules, or bye -laws so issued. This section is parimateria with section 21 of the General Clauses Act prevailing elsewhere in the country That section fell for consideration before the Supreme Court in the case of State of Bihar Versus D. N. Gangully and ors, AIR 1958 S. C. 1018. The court observed: