Sanction for corruption prosecution and continuity of pre-Constitution police law upheld under constitutional continuity principles.

Sanction for prosecution under the Prevention of Corruption Act was upheld because it was granted by the Deputy Inspector-General of Police, an authority superior to the appointing officer and competent to remove the public servant, satisfying the statutory requirement. The Indian Police Act was also held to continue in force in Punjab after the Constitution commenced, since Article 372(1) preserves existing laws unless inconsistent with the Constitution, and later changes in legislative competence under Article 246 do not by themselves repeal pre-Constitution laws. The challenge therefore failed on both grounds, and the matter was remitted for trial in accordance with law.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the sanction for prosecution under the Prevention of Corruption Act was valid; (ii) whether the Indian Police Act continued to remain in force in the State of Punjab after the commencement of the Constitution.

Issue (i): whether the sanction for prosecution under the Prevention of Corruption Act was valid.

Analysis: The sanction was examined under Section 6(1)(c), which requires previous sanction from the authority competent to remove the public servant from office. The accused had been appointed by an officer of the rank of Superintendent of Police, and the sanction was granted by the Deputy Inspector-General of Police, who ranked higher than that appointing authority. On that basis, the sanction was found to satisfy the statutory requirement.

Conclusion: The sanction was valid and no objection could be sustained on that ground.

Issue (ii): whether the Indian Police Act continued to remain in force in the State of Punjab after the commencement of the Constitution.

Analysis: The question was considered in the light of Article 372(1), which continues in force laws existing in the territory of India at the commencement of the Constitution, subject to the Constitution. Article 246 was held not to affect laws already in existence. The conclusion was that pre-Constitution laws do not cease merely because legislative competence is thereafter distributed differently under the Constitution.

Conclusion: The Indian Police Act remained valid and applicable in Punjab.

Final Conclusion: The challenge to the order failed on both grounds, and the matter was sent back for trial in accordance with law.

Ratio Decidendi: A pre-Constitution law continues in force under Article 372(1) unless it is inconsistent with the Constitution, and sanction under the Prevention of Corruption Act is valid when granted by an authority superior to the appointing authority competent to remove the public servant.

---