TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1957 (10) TMI 45
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....i, Fatehpur Rajputan habitually accepted or obtained for yourself illegal gratification and that you received in the sum of Rs. 50 on 19-3-1953 at Subzi Mandi Amritsar from Pal Singh P.W. as a reward for forwarding the application Es. P.A. with your recommendation for helping Santa Singh father of Pal Singh in the allotment of Ahata No. 10 situate at village Fatehpur Rajputana and thereby committed an offence of Criminal misconduct in the discharge of your duty mentioned in section 5(1)(a) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, punishable under sub-section 2 of section 5 of the aforesaid Act and within my cognizance." 3. The Special Judge found that the appellant had accepted illegal gratification from Pal Singh, Hazara Singh, Har....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....on of Rs. 50 in 5 currency notes of Rs. 10 denomination each from one Pal Singh son of S. Santa Singh of village Fatehpur, Rajputan, Tehsil Amritsar for making a favourable report on an application for allotment of an ahata to S. Santa Singh father of the said S. Pal Singh. And whereas the evidence available in this case clearly discloses that the said S. Jaswant Singh Patwari had committed an offence under Section 5 of the Prevention of Corruption Act. Now therefore, I, N.N. Kashyap, Esquire I.C.S. Deputy Commissioner, Asr, as required by Section 6 of the Prevention of Corruption Act of 1947, hereby sanction the prosecution of the said S. Jaswant Singh Patwari under section 5 of the said Act." 7. Section 6(1) of the Act provides ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....usion that the prosecution in the circumstances be sanctioned or forbidden. In Gokulchand Dwarkadas Morarka v. The King (1948) L.R. 75 I.A. 30 the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council also took a similar view when it observed : "In their Lordships' view, to comply with the provisions of clause 23 it must be proved that the sanction was given in respect of the facts constituting the offence charged. It is plainly desirable that the facts should be referred to on the face of the sanction, but this is not essential, since clause 23 does not require the sanction to be in any particular form, nor even to be in writing. But if the facts constituting the offence charged are not shown on the face of the sanction, the prosecution must ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ection 6(1) of the Act bars the jurisdiction of the court to take cognizance of an offence for which previous sanction is required and has not been given. The prosecution for offence under s. 5(1)(d) therefore is not barred because the proceedings are not without previous sanction which was validly given for the offence of receiving a bribe from Pal Singh, but the offence of habitually receiving illegal gratification could not be taken cognizance of and the prosecution and trial for that offence was void for want of sanction which is a condition precedent for the courts taking cognizance of the offence alleged to be committed and therefore the High Court has rightly set aside the conviction for that offence. In Hori Ram Singh v. The Crown ....