iminal Appeal No 18 of 1955
Appeal from the judgment and order dated December 1 1954 of the Calcutta High Court in Criminal Appeal No 322 of 1953 arising out of the judgment and order dated November 20 1953 of the West Bengal First Special Court at Alipore in Case No 3 of 1953
N C Chatterjee and D N Mukherjee for the appellant
B Sen and P K Ghosh for P K Bose for the respondent
November 26
The following Judgment of the Court was delivered by IMAM J The High Court of Calcutta certified under article 1341c of the Constitution that the case before us was a fit one for appeal to this Court
The 127 1000 ground for the granting of the certificate as stated by the High Court will be considered in due course
The appellant was convicted under section 52 of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1947 II of 1947 hereinafter referred to as the Act and under section 161 of the Indian Penal Code by a Special Judge who sentenced him under section 161 to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months and to pay a fine of Rs 500 in default to suffer further rigorous imprisonment for one month
No separate sentence was passed under section 52 of the Act
He unsuccessfully appealed to the High Court against his conviction and sentence
The charge framed against the appellant under section 161 of the Indian Penal Code in substance stated that on or about May 12 1952he had accepted Rs 100 as illegal gratification from V section Doraiswamy as a motive or reward for doing an official act and showing in the exercise of his official functions favour to Doraiswamy in seeing that a speedy and favourable settlement of the claim cases preferred by him against the Bengal Nagpur Railway subsequently the Eastern Railway
The charge under section 52 of the Act which related to the same transaction stated that the appellant had accepted the aforesaid sum of Rs 100 by corrupt or illegal means or by otherwise abusing his position as a public servant
It is unnecessary to set out in any great detail the story of the prosecution as to how Doraiswamy and the appellant came into contact and how the process of giving bribe to the appellant began
They met in 1950
Rs 10 was paid to the appellant in October 1951 and Rs 15 in January 1952 as the result of the appellant asking Doraiswamy for some gratification for speedy and favourable disposal of his claim cases
The appellant was at that time Assistant Supervisor of Claim Cases of the Bengal Nagpur Railway of the Vizianagram Section
On some secret information the Deputy Superintendent of Police Special Police Establishment at Puri directed Inspector G N Brahma to contact Doraiswamy in connection with a report of alleged dishonesty by railway officials
Brahma met Doraiswamy and asked him to meet him again at 1001 Calcutta on May 10 1952 after the latter had filed a complaint along with some letters said to have been written by the appellant
Permission was obtained from the Chief Presidency Magistrate Calcutta to investigate the case
Thereafter Doraiswamy met the appellant in Calcutta and it was settled that the former would pay the latter Rs 100 on May 12 1952 at 6 p m at the India Coffee House
Doraiswamy informed the police of the arrangement
Marked tenrupee currency notes were given to Doraiswamy
The appellant and Doraiswamy met at the India Coffee House as arranged
There was a talk between them about expediting the claim cases which were being dealt with by the appellant and a list of them was given to him
This list and the bundle of marked currency notes which Doraiswamy gave him were put in the left upper pocket of his shirt by the appellant
The Inspectors H K Mukherjee and section B Mitra along with G N Gosh an Assistant Director of Postal Ser vices and Brahma came up to the appellant
He was accused by the police of having received 10 ten rupee currency notes as bribe from Doraiswamy and was asked to produce them
After some hesitation the appellant produced the currency notes as well as the list given to him by Doraiswamy
The number of the currency notes were checked and found to tally with the previously noted numbers of the currency notes given to Doraiswamy for handing them over to the appellant
The case of the prosecution was found to have been proved by both the courts below and the appellant was convicted and sentenced as stated above
It may be stated at the outset that the concurrent findings of fact arrived at by the courts below were not questioned before us
The only question canvassed before us was whether there had been a valid sanction given under section 6 of the Act without which no court could take cognizance of the offences alleged to have been committed by the appellant
In order to appreciate the submission made by Mr Chatterjee in this connection a few facts have to be stated and some reference to the evidence of 1002 Mr Bokil PW 5 Chief Commercial Superintendent of the Eastern Railway at Calcutta will be necessary
The appellant as Assistant Supervisor of Claim Cases of the then Bengal Nagpur Railway later the Eastern Railway had the power to deal finally with claims up to Rs 75 and for claims in excess of that sum to make a recommendation to his superior officer the Assistant Commercial Superintendent
Doraiswamy was working on behalf of several persons who had made claims against the Railway
These cases were numerous
All these cases had to be dealt with by the appellant either by passing final orders himself if the value in each case was Rs 75 or less or by recommending to his superior officer the cases where the value of the claim in each case was more than Rs 75
The appellant therefore being incharge of all the claim cases played an important part in their disposal either by passing final orders himself or by making recommendations
When the appellant was paid Rs 100 at the India Coffee House on May 12 1952 he was found in possession of the marked currency notes and the list of cases in which claims had been made which had been given to him by Doraiswamy
Sanction for the prosecution of the appellant was sought from the Chief Commercial Superintendent Mr Bokil PW 5
There is no dispute that Mr Bokil was competent to grant the sanction
He had stated in his evidence that before according the sanction he went through all the relevant papers and was satisfied that in the interests of justice the appellant should be prosecuted
He accordingly gave the sanction in writing and this document was marked as exhibit 6
Exhibit 6 clearly states that the appellant had demanded on May 12 1952 as bribe the sum of Rs 100 from Doraiswamy and had accepted the sum as a motive or reward for speedy and favourable settlement of the claim cases that Mr Bokil had applied his mind to the facts and the circumstances of the case and was satisfied that in the interests of justice the appellant should be put on his trial in a Court of competent jurisdiction for offences under section 161 of the Indian Penal Code and section 52 of the Act alleged to have been 1003 committed by him
He accordingly under the provisions of section 6 of the Act accorded his sanction that the appellant be prosecuted in a competent court of law for the offence of having accepted illegal gratification as a motive or reward for showing favour to Doraiswamy in respect of the claim cases filed against the Vizianagram Section of the Railway
Exhibit 6 on the face of it and the evidence of Mr Bokil in examination in chief clearly establish that a valid sanction had been accorded by Mr Bokil
It was however urged before the Special Judge as it was urged in the High Court that certain statements made by Mr Bokil in cross examination clearly showed that he had not applied his mind to the facts and circumstances of the case and the sanction accorded by him was not a valid one
The Special Judge rejected this contention and was satisfied that exhibit 6 on the face of it disclosed a valid sanction for the prosecution of the appellant
The learned Judges of the High Court who heard the appeal were also satisfied that Mr Bokil had in fact applied his mind to the facts and circumstances of the case
Regarding the statements made by Mr Bokil in cross examination they were of the opinion that they did not show that he did not apply his mind to the facts of the case
These statements merely showed that he did not investigate the truth of the case presented against the appellant
An application was filed in the High Court under article 134 of the Constitution for the granting of a certificate that the case was a fit one for appeal to this Court
The order granting the certificate shows that the learned Judges who heard the application were of the opinion that the sanction accorded in this case was not a valid sanction
The learned Judges were of the opinion that the question whether or not there was a proper sanction in the case was a question serious enough to justify the granting of a certificate
It is necessary therefore to decide whether the sanction accorded in this case was a valid sanction
The substance of the sanction has already been stated but in order that there may be no misunderstanding we quote the very words of the sanction itself 1004  Whereas a complaint was made against Shri Indu Bhusan Chatterjee Assistant Supervisor Claims of the B N Railway now Eastern Railway Garden Reach Calcutta who looked after the claims cases against the Railway of the Vizianagram Section that the said Indu Bhusan Chatterjee had demanded and on 12th May 1952 accepted a bribe of Rs 100 Rupees one hundred only from Shri V section Doraiswamy of the Commercial Claims Bureau Vizianagram as a motive or reward for speedy and favourable settlement of the claims cases of the Commercial Claims Bureau and thereby having committed an offence punishable under Section 161 1
P C and also the offence of criminal misconduct by the illegal and corrupt use of his official position as a public servant to obtain a pecuniary advantage for himself punishable under Section 52 read with Section 51 clause d of the Prevention of Corruption Act II of 1947 1 R K Bokil Chief Commercial Superintendent Eastern Railway Calcutta having applied my mind to the facts and circumstances of the case am satisfied and am of the opinion that in the interests of justice Shri Indu Bhusan Chatterjee Assistant Supervisor Claims Eastern Railway Garden Reach Calcutta be put on his trial in a Court of competent jurisdiction for the offences alleged against him
That as Shri Indu Bhusan Chatterjee Assistant Supervisor Claims Eastern Railway Garden Reach Calcutta is removable from his office by me I therefore by virtue of the powers vested in me by Section 6c of the Prevention of Corruption Act II of 1947 do hereby accord sanction that Shri Indu Bhusan Chatterjee be prosecuted in a competent Court of law for the offence of having accepted an illegal gratification as a motive or reward for showing favour to Shri VS Doraiswamy in his official functions viz the settlement of the cases of the Vizianagram Section of Eastern Railway punishable under Section 161 IPC and for the offence of criminal misconduct for the corrupt and illegal use of his official position to obtain a pecuniary advantage for himself punishable under Section 52 of the Prevention of Corruption Act Act II of 1947 1005 In our opinion this sanction clearly states all the facts which concern the prosecution case alleged against the the appellant with reference to his acceptance of Rs 100 from Doraiswamy on May 121952 in circumstances which if established would constitute offences under section 161 Indian Penal Code and section 52 of the Act
The sanction also clearly states that Mr Bokil had applied his mind and was of the opinion that in the interests of justice the appellant should be prosecuted
The charge framed against the appellant at his trial was with reference to this very incident and none other
What more facts were required to be stated in the sanction itself we are unable to understand
Mr Bokil in his examination in chief stated  On the prayer of the police I accorded sanction to the prosecution of one Shri I B Chatterjee who was the Assistant Supervisor of Claims
Before according sanction I went through all relevant papers and was satisfied that in the interest of justice Sri IB Chatterjee should be prosecuted
This is the sanction marked exhibit 6 
In cross examination however he made the following statement  This sanction exhibit 6 was prepared by the police and it was put before me by the personnel branch of my office
I did not call for any record in connection with this matter from my office
I did not call for the connected claim cases nor did I enquire about the position of those claim cases
 The learned Judges in granting the certificate apparently were impressed by the statement of Mr Bokil that exhibit 6 was prepared by the police and put before him by the personnel branch of his office because the learned Chief Justice observed I can hardly imagine the duty of granting the proper sanction being properly discharged by merely putting one s signature on a ready made sanction presented by the police
 It seems to us that Mr Bokil s statement does not prove that he merely put his signature on a readymade sanction presented by the police
It is true that he did not himself dictate or draft the sanction but Mr Bokil has stated in the clearest terms in his examination in chief that before be accorded sanction he went through all the relevant papers
There is no 1006 reason to distrust this statement of Mr Bokil nor has the High Court while granting the certificate of fitness done so
He was an officer of high rank in the Railway and must have been fully aware that the responsibility of according the sanction against an official of the Railway subordinate to him lay upon him
It is inconceivable that an officer of the rank of Mr Bokil would blindly sign a ready made sanc tion prepared by the police
Apparently the sanction already drafted contained all the material facts upon which the prosecution was to be launched if at all concerning the acceptance of the bribe by the appellant on May 12 1952
When exhibit 6 was placed before Mr Bokil other relevant papers were also placed before him
It is significant that Mr Bokil was not crossexamined as to what the other relevant papers were and in the absence of any question being put to Mr Bokil we must accept his statement that the papers placed before him were relevant to the only question before him whether he should or should not accord his sanction to the prosecution of the appellant
Mr Bokil said and we see no reason to distrust his statement that before he accorded his sanction lie went through all these papers and after being satisfied that sanction should be given he accorded his sanction
It is true that he did not call for any record in connection with the matter from his office nor did he call for the connected claim cases or find out as to how they stood
It was not for Mr Bokil to judge the truth of the allegations made against the appellant by calling for the records of the connected claim cases or other records in connection with the matter from his office
The papers which were placed before him apparently gave him the necessary material upon which he decided that it was necessary in the ends of justice to accord his sanction
Reliance was placed on the case of Gokulchand Dwarkadas Morarka vs The King1 and other cases to which it is unnecessary to refer in support of the submission on behalf of the appellant that the sanction accorded was not a valid sanction
A careful reading 1 1948 LR 75 IA 30 1007 however of Morarka s case 1 satisfies us that the sanction accorded in this case in no way conflicts with the observations of their Lordships of the Judicial Committee
On the contrary in our opinion it is in keeping with them
None of the other cases cited by the learned Counsel for the appellant assist us in the matter
When the sanction itself and the evidence of Mr Bokil are carefully scrutinized and read together there can be little doubt that the sanction accorded was a valid sanction
The only point which had been argued before us and which was the expressed reason for the granting of the certificate having failed the appeal must be dismissed and the decision of the High Court in upholding the conviction and sentence of the appellant must be upheld
Appeal dismissed


Summary:
The appellant a public servant was convicted under section 52 of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1947 and under section 161 of the Indian Penal Code on a charge of accepting a sum of Rs 100 as illegal gratification
It was contended for the appellant that the conviction was bad on the ground that the sanction for his prosecution was not valid because the officer competent to sanction the prosecution 1 had not applied his mind to the facts and circumstances of the case but merely perused the draft prepared by the Police and 2 did not investigate the truth of the offence  The evidence however showed that he went through all the papers placed before him which gave him the necessary material upon which he decided that it was necessary in the ends of justice to accord his sanction  Held that the essentials of a valid sanction were present in the case and that the conviction was valid
Gokulchand Dwarkadas Morarka vs The King 1948 LR 75 IA 30 referred to