Asthana, J.@mdashThe appellant Ratan Prakash Garg, who was employed as store-keeper-cum-well supervisor in the district of Bulandshahr, has been convicted u/s 161, I.P.C., and sentenced to one year''s rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 500 and in default three months'' further rigorous imprisonment by the Special Judge, Bulandshahr.
2. It has been contended before me on behalf of the appellant that the learned Special Judge had no jurisdiction to try the case as there was no sanction for the prosecution of the appellant as required u/s 6 of the Prevention of Corruption Act (Act II of 1947). This section runs as follows:
No court shall take cognizance of an offence punishable u/s 161 or Section 165, I.P.C., or under Sub-section (2) of Section 5 of the this Act, alleged to have been committed by a public servant except with the previous sanction-
(a) in the case of a person who is employed in connexion with the affairs of the federation and is not removable from his office save by or with the sanction of the Central Government or some higher authority, of the Central Government;
(b) in the case of a person who is employed in connexion with the affairs of a province and is not removable from his office save by or with the sanction of the Provincial Government or some higher authority of the Provincial Government;
(c) in the case of any other person, of the authority competent to remove him from his office.
3. It will appear from the above section that previous sanction from the competent authority is a condition precedent to confer jurisdiction on any particular court to try a person accused of an offence u/s 161 or Section 165, I.P.C., or under Sub-section (2) of Section 5 of the Prevention of Corruption Act where the offence has been committed by a public servant. It is not disputed that the appellant is a public servant and the offence u/s 161, I.P.C., is alleged to have been committed in his capacity as such public servant. Learned Counsel for the State has not been able to satisfy me from the record that the required sanction had been obtained in the present case before the prosecution of the appellant on the aforesaid charge. In view of the above mandatory provision there can be no doubt that the learned Special Judge had no jurisdiction to take cognizance of the offence u/s 161, I.P.C., against the appellant and as such, the entire proceedings are vitiated for want of jurisdiction.
4. This appeal is, therefore, allowed and the conviction and sentence of the appellant u/s 161, I.P.C., is set aside. It will, however, be open to the authorities concerned to prosecute the appellant u/s 161, I.P.C., if they so desire, after obtaining the necessary sanction.
