STATE OF RAJASTHAN Vs. GIRVAR DAYAL DAVE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal by the State brought against the judgment of the learned Special Judge, Tonk dated 26-3-1970 acquitting the accused-respondents of an offence under Sec. 5 (l) (d) read with sec. 5 2) of the Prevention of Corrruption Act, and under Secs. 161, 165, 165-A, 420, 419, 120-B, 117, 114 and 218, IPC.

(2.) ACCUSED Girvar Dayal Dave was, at the relevant time, a Sub-Inspector of Police, and posted at Police Station, Uniara. On 21st February, 1966, the accused Girvar Dayal Dave accompanied with others went to village Balithal to the house of PW/6 Sukhdev Sukhdev was said to have held a feast for 500 to 700 persons in contravention of law. The accused had earlier entered into a conspiracy to exploit this for extracting illegal gratification from Sukhdev. They succeeded in extracting an amount of Rs. 500/- from Sukhdev. ACCUSED Umarao Mal was acquitted. He posed himself as a Superintendent of Police. The other accused were constables. Girvar Dayal Dave was offered a bribe of Rs. 100/- in the first instance to hush up the case. But he suggested that Sukhdev should meet Umuraomal, who was sitting in the vehicle. Girvar Dayal Dave made Sukhdev to understand that Umarao Mal Jain was the Superintendent of Police, and he would not be satisfied with a small amount. While the party of the accused were leaving, someone or the other of the villagers were able to know that accused Umarao Mal Jain was not the Superintendent of Police, but an Advocate. Ultimately, on 25-2-1966, a complaint was lodged by Sukhdev before PW/16, Shri Dharma Pal, Superintendent of Police to the effect that the accused had cheated him by giving out Umarao Mal Jain as Superintendent of Police. Shri Dharma Pal ordered a preliminary investigation. Accordingly, PW/15 Krishna Gopal, the Deputy Superintendent of Police made the investigation, and reported that the complaint was true. On 14-3-1966, the S. P. Tonk lodged a formal F. I. R. with the Anti-Corruption, Police Station, Jaipur. The Anti-Corruption Police then completed the investigations, and on 9-6-1967 put up a challan against the accused in the Court of Special Judge, Tonk. Learned Special Judge registered the case on 13-6-1967, and ordered the issue of summons against the accused on 24 6-1967. One of the accused, however, did not appear on the date of hearing, and accordingly a bailable warrant was issued against him. A sanction for prosecuting the accused under Sec. 6 of the Prevention of Corruption Act accorded by the Deputy Inspector General of Police was filed along with the Challan; but the prosecution felt that this was defective. Accordingly, a fresh sanction purporting to have been issued by the Inspector General of Police on 18-9-1967, was filed. The proceedings continued before the learned Special Judge. Eventually, the accused were acquitted by the learned Special Judge.

(3.) HOWEVER, as the learned Special Judge had reached the conclusion that there was no valid sanction before the taking of cognizance in the present case, he was not justified in entering into the merits of the case. It was his clear duty to have stayed his hands once he had come to the conclusion that there was no valid sanction. In the absence of a vaild sanction, the Special Judge did not have any jurisdiction to proceed with the case, or to weigh the evidence and then record an acquittal on merits. The prosecution should have been left free to proceed further in the matter, if they were so advised, on the basis of a valid sanction; but, the learned Special Judge was not justified in recording an order of acquittal against the accused. The proper order to pass would be that of discharge, and not of acquittal. We are not, therefore, called upon to enter into the merits of the evidence.