iminal Appeal No124 of 1966
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated February 17 1966 of the Punjab High Court Circuit Bench Delhi in Criminal Appeal No 63 D of 1964
184 M C Chagla E C Agarwala Santosh Agarwala and P C Agarwala for the appellant
D Narsaraju and R N Sachthey for the respondents
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Ramaswami J
This appeal is brought by special leave from the judgment of the Punjab High Court dated February 17 1966 in Criminal Appeal No 63 D of 1964 affirming the conviction of the appellant under section 52 of the Prevention of Corruption Act Act 11 of 1947 and section 161 of the Indian Penal Code
The case of the prosecution is that Miss Eylene PW 2 used to live in 1962 with her father at Fazilka
She developed illicit connection with someone and became pregnant
In April 1963
she went to Ambala to her maternal aunt who is employed as a sister in the Ambala Air Force Hospital and give birth to a son there in July 1963
In August 1963 Miss Eylene along with her newly born son came to the house of her uncle Russel Nathaniel in Andrews Ganj Delhi
Since Miss Eylene was unmarried and could not keep the son with her she asked Russel Nathaniel and his wife to make arrangement for the bringing up of the child
Russel Nathaniel knew Roshan Lal who had no child of his own and wanted to adopt a child
Accordingly on August 25 1963 the child was handed over to Roshan Lal
After the child was handed over to Roshan Lal Miss Eylene went to the house of her sister s husband N K Lal PW 11 and stayed there with her sister
It is alleged that on August 29 1963 at about 930 or 10 Pm
the appellant went to the house of Russel Nathaniel in police uniform and accused Russel Nathaniel and his wife of disposing of the illegitimate child
The appellant further warned Mr  Mrs Nathaniel that if they wanted to save themselves they should make some settlement with him and demanded a bribe of Rs 1000 
But Mr Nathaniel paid him Rs 90 and agreed to pay later on a sum of Rs 700 
The appellant thereafter compelled Russel Nathaniel and his wife to execute a document in writing that they would pay him Rs 700 or agree to go to prison
It is said that the appellant asked Russel Nathaniel to bring to him Roshan Lal and when Roshan Lal was called the appellant asked him to pay something to him
Roshan Lal ex
pressed his inability to pay anything whereupon the appellant removed a golden ring from his finger
On the same night the appellant contacted the girl Miss Eylene and wished to record her statement
Russel Nathaniel and his wife expressed their reluctance to send Miss Eylene with the appellant to the police station and therefore the appellant interrogated the girl at the resi dence of N K Lal her brother in law
The appellant made her sign a paper and took the same with him
On September 4 185 1963 Russel Nathaniel and N K Lal decided to refer the matter to the anti corruption department
Accordingly Russel Nathaniel went to DSP Mukatdhari Singh who recorded his statement and called two witnesses to witness the proceedings
Russel Nathaniel produced seven currency notes of the denomination of Rs 100 each
The numbers of those currency notes were noted and Russel Nathaniel was then instructed to pass on the money to the appellant
Russel Nathaniel contacted the appellant and asked him to come to the house of N K Lal
They arrived at the house of N K Lal at about 730 or 745 Pm
The appellant sent for the girl because he wanted to reprimand her and there after he asked for the payment of the agreed amount
Russel Nathaniel handed over the currency notes to the appellant who put them in the left side pocket of his trousers
Russel Nathaniel then gave a signai and immediately DSP Mukatdhari Singh turned up and recovered the currency notes from the pocket of the appellant
On being questioned the appellant told the DSP that he never asked for bribe and that the money was paid to him in repayment of the loan by him to Russel Nathaniel
The appellant produced in the witness box Dharam Vir F C Ram Saran H C Jai Parkash and A section Kapur
After conclusion of the trial the Special Judge Delhi accepted the prosecution case as correct and convicted the appellant of the charged framed against him and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs 5001 or in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a further period of six months under section 52 of the Prevention of Corruption Act and to two years rigorous imprisonment under section 161 Indian Penal Code and ordered the substantive sentences to run concurrently
The appellant took the matter in appeal to the Punjab High Court
The High Court maintained the conviction of the appellant under section 52 of the Prevention of Corruption Act and section 161 Indian Penal
Code and also the sentence to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years awarded to the appellant on each count
The High Court
however set aside the order with regard to the payment of fine or imprisonment in default
In support of this appeal Mr Chagla submitted in the first place that the order of sanction was bad in law as all the relevant papers and materials were not placed before the DIG Police Mr M P Singh who was the sanctioning authority
Reference was made in this connection to the decision of the Judicial Committee in Gokulchand vs The King1 in which it was held that a sanction which simply names the person to be prosecuted and specifies the provision of the Order which he is alleged to have contravened is not a sufficient compliance with cl 23
Mr Chagla 1 AIR 1948 PC 82
10 Sup
CI 68 13 186 also referred to the evidence of PW 9 Sub Inspector Ascharaj Lal who said that all the papers relating to the case were sent to the DIG When cross examined he could not say which were the documents which were sent to the DIG because they were in a sealed cover
In our opinion there is no substance in the argument put forward by Mr Chagla on behalf of the appellant
The Order of sanction dated December 10 1963 shows on the face of it what were the facts constituting the offence charged and that a prima facie case was made out against the appellant
The Order also further recites that Mr M P Singh DIG after fully and carefully examining the material before him in regard to the aforesaid allegations in the case considers that a prima facie case is made against the appellant
It is manifest that the decision of the Judicial Committee has no application to the present case for the order of sanction in that case was much more cryptic and materially different
We are satisfied that the order of sanction in the present case fulfils the requirements of section 6 of the Prevention of Corruption Act
We accordingly reject the argument of Mr Chagla on this aspect of the case
It was then contended that the concealment of the birth of an illegitimate child was not an offence under the Indian Penal Code or any other criminal statute and if the appellant had obtained money from Russel Nathaniel it cannot be said that the appellant had obtained a gratification for doing or forbearing to do any official act or for showing or forbearing to show in the exercise of his official functions favour or disfavour to any per son
In other words the argument was that the appellant could not prosecute either Miss Eylene or Russel Nathaniel or anybody else for any offence and obtaining of money by the appellant for refraining from any such imaginary prosecution cannot be said to be an offence under section 161 Indian Penal Code or section 51d of the Prevention of Corruption Act
We are unable to accept this argument as correct
When a public servant is charged under section 161 Indian Penal Code and it is alleged that the illegal grati fication was taken by him for doing or procuring an official act it is not necessary for the Court to consider whether or not the accused public servant was capable of doing or intended to do such an act see the decision of this Court in Mahesh Prasad vs The State of Uttar Pradesh1
In the second place the charge against the appellant is also under section 51d of the Prevention of Corruption Act which states 51 A public servant is said to commit the offence of criminal misconduct 1 1955 1 SCR965
187 d if he by corrupt or illegal means or by otherwise abusing his position as public servant obtains for himself or for any other person any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage or Section 52 states  2 Any public servant who commits criminal misconduct shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than one year but which may extend to seven years and shall also be liable to fine X X  Provided that the court may for any special reasons recorded in writing impose a sentence of imprisonment of less than one year
 Upon the facts which have been found by the High Court to be proved there can be no doubt that the appellant was guilty of grossly abusing his position as public servant within the meaning of section 51d of the Prevention of Corruption Act and thereby obtained for himself a valuable thing or pecuniary advantage and the charge under that section is established
We are therefore of the opinion that Mr Chagla is unable to make good his argument on this aspect of the case also
Lastly Mr Chagla submitted that the sentence of imprison ment was excessive
We are unable to accept this contention
Upon the finding of the High Court in this case it is manifest that the appellant grossly abused his position as a police officer and extorted money from Russel Nathaniel and his wife and also a gold ring from Roshan Lal
The appellant in his official capacity as a police officer was expected to maintain a high standard of integrity and to uphold the maintenance of law
Instead them proved facts disclose that there was a gross abuse of his official position on the part or the appellant and in the circumstances of the case we are satisfied that the sentence imposed is not excessive
For the reasons expressed we affirm the judgment of the High Court of Punjab dated February 17 1966 in Criminal Appeal No 63 D of 1964 and dismiss this appeal


Summary:
An unmarried woman gave birth to a child and on her request her uncle and aunt made arrangements for the child being brought up by some one who wanted to adopt a child
The appellant who was a police officer accused the uncle and aunt of having disposed of an illegitimate child and demanded a bribe
The anti corruption department was thereupon informed a trap laid and currency notes which were given as bribe were recovered from the appellant
He was prosecuted and convicted for offences under section 52 of the Prevention of Corruption Act and section 161 IPC The High Court confirmed the conviction and sentenced him to 2 years RI
In appeal to this Court HELD  1 The order of sanction showed on the face of it what were the facts constituting the offence that a prima facie case was made out and that the sanctioning authority had fully and carefully examined the material Therefore the order of sanction fulfilled the requirements of section 6 of the Prevention of Corruption Act
186 B D Gokukhand vs The King AIR 1948 PC 82 distinguished
2 a When a public servant is charged under section 161 IPC and it is alleged that illegal gratification was taken by him for doing or procuring an official act it is not necessary for the court to consider whether or not the accused public servant was capable of doing or intended to do such an act
186 F G Mahesh Prasad vs The State of UP   followed
Therefore though the concealment of the birth of an illegitimate child is not an offence and the appellant could not have prosecuted any one it could not be said that the obtaining of money by the appellant for refraining from an imaginary prosecution was not an offence under 161 IPC 186 E F b In any event the appellant was guilty of an offence under section 51d of the Prevention of Corruption Act in that he grossly abused his position within the meaning of the section and thereby obtained for himself pecuniary advantage and so the sentence imposed on him was not excessive 187 D E