Case Note & Summary
The Supreme Court of India considered the requirement of sanction under Section 6 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 in a case where the accused had been dismissed from public service before the court took cognizance of the offence. The appellant, S. A. Venkataraman, was a public servant who, after a departmental inquiry, was dismissed from service. Subsequently, he was charged with criminal misconduct under Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947. The prosecution did not obtain or produce any sanction under Section 6 of the Act. The Special Judge, Delhi, convicted the appellant on December 6, 1954. The Punjab High Court dismissed his appeal on May 12, 1955. On appeal by special leave to the Supreme Court, the appellant contended that the court could not have taken cognizance of the offence in the absence of a proper sanction under Section 6. The core legal issue was whether Section 6 required sanction for prosecution when the accused was no longer a public servant at the time of cognizance, even though the offence was committed while he held office. The Supreme Court, interpreting Section 6(1), stressed that the words of a statute, if clear, must be given their natural meaning. Section 6(1)(c) refers to the sanction of 'the authority competent to remove him from his office.' The Court reasoned that a person who has ceased to be a public servant is not one who can be removed from office by a competent authority. Therefore, at the time the court is asked to take cognizance, the accused must still be a public servant removable from his office for the prohibitory provision to apply. The Court held that no sanction was necessary, dismissed the appeal, and upheld the conviction. This decision established that the protection of Section 6 is available only to those who are public servants at the time of taking cognizance, not to former public servants who have already been dismissed.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Sanction to Prosecute - Section 6, Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 - No sanction required if accused is no longer a public servant at time of cognizance - The appellant, a dismissed public servant, was prosecuted for criminal misconduct under Section 5(2) without sanction. Held that the words 'of the authority competent to remove him from his office' in Section 6(1)(c) imply that the accused must still be removable from office at the time the court takes cognizance; since the appellant had ceased to be a public servant, no sanction was necessary. The court gave effect to the natural meaning of the clear words of the provision, holding that the prohibition on taking cognizance without sanction applies only when the accused is still a public servant removable from office.
Issue of Consideration
Whether sanction under section 6 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 is necessary for the prosecution of a person who was a public servant at the time of the alleged offence but had ceased to be a public servant before cognizance was taken by the court
Final Decision
Appeal dismissed. No sanction under Section 6 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 was required as the appellant was not a public servant at the time cognizance was taken. Conviction and sentence upheld.
Law Points
- Sanction under section 6 of Prevention of Corruption Act
- 1947 is not required if the accused is no longer a public servant at the time court takes cognizance
- interpretation of statute must first give effect to natural meaning of clear words
- prohibition on taking cognizance must be confined to the terms of the prohibition
