TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1954 (10) TMI 59
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d sentence have been upheld by the Sessions Judge on appeal and by the High Court in revision. The charge against the of Appellant was that on the 6th January, 1951, he accepted illegal gratification of Rs. 150 from the complainant, Gurphekan--a retrenched cleaner in the Locomotive Department of the Railway, examined as P.W. 2--as a motive for getting him re-employed in the Railway (by arranging with some superior officer). There was an alternative charge under Section 162 of the Indian Penal Code but it is no longer necessary to notice it since the conviction is for the main charge under Section 161 of the Indian Penal Code. The Special Police Establishment having received information of the demand of the bribe arranged for a trap and caug....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....g service, with any public servant as such, is guilty of the offence thereunder. To constitute an offence under this section it is enough if the public servant who receives the money takes it by holding out that he will render assistance to the giver "with any other public servant" and the giver gives the money under that belief. It may be that the receiver of the money is in fact not in a position to render such assistance and is even aware of it. He may not even have intended to do what he holds himself out as capable of doing. He may accordingly be guilty of cheating. None the less he is guilty of the offence under Section 161 of the Indian Penal Code. This is clear from the fourth Explanation to Section 161, Indian Penal Code, which is ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Allahabad". But even apart from such a finding there is nothing in the terms of Section 161, Indian Penal Code, requiring that the public servant contemplated therein must be a specified public servant. The material portion of the section is as follows: for rendering or attempting to render any service or disservice to any person with the Central or Provincial Government or Legislature, or with any public servant as such. 7. The phrase "Central or any Provincial Government or Legislature" does not contemplate, any specified individual or individuals. There is no reason why the phrase "any public servant" used in the same context should be taken to mean any specified public servant. The gist of the offence under Section 161, Ind....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ent of the Appellant, Exhibit F, shows the Divisional Personnel Officer, East Indian Railway, Allahabad, as the appointing authority. It may be mentioned that in the appeal before the Sessions Judge a contention was raised that the appointment of the Appellant was in fact made by the Divisional Superintendent and that Exhibit F was only signed by the Divisional Personnel Officer on his behalf. The Sessions Judge found against this contention and the same has not been challenged before us. What, however, is urged is that the Superintendent Power who gave the sanction for prosecution is not shown to be an officer not lower in rank than the Divisional Personnel Officer who made the appointment. The question as to the validity of the sanction h....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... competent to remove must be either the very authority who appointed or any other authority directly superior to the appointing authority in the same department. We do not think that this contention is tenable. What the Constitution requires is that a person should not be removed by an authority subordinate to the one by whom he was appointed and what the rule in the Railway Code prescribes is substantially the same, viz., " the authority competent to remove should not be lower than the one who made the appointment". These provisions cannot be read as implying that the removal must be by the very same authority who made the appointment or by his direct superior. It appears to us to be enough that the removing authority is of the same rank o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....to the Classified List of Establishment of Indian Railways and the same has also been produced before us for our information. This shows that both the Divisional Personnel Officer as well as Superintendent Power are officers in the senior scale drawing equal scales of pay Rs. 625-50-1,375. This is an indication that they are officers of the same rank and confirms the oral evidence of P.W. 4 who being the Head-clerk of the Divisional Superintendent's office must be competent to speak about these matters. It certainly cannot be said that the Superintendent Power who has granted the sanction for prosecution of the Appellant at the time working under him, is of a rank or a grade lower than the Divisional Personnel Officer who appointed the ....