http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 4  

PETITIONER: PARMANAND DASS

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

DATE OF JUDGMENT15/09/1978

BENCH: KAILASAM, P.S. BENCH: KAILASAM, P.S. SINGH, JASWANT

CITATION:  1978 AIR 1745            1979 SCR  (1) 792  1978 SCC  (4)  32

ACT:      Sanctioning authority  for the purposes of Section 6 of the  Prevention   of  Corruption  Act  under  the  Hyderabad Municipal Corporation  Act, 1955  as amended  by Act  II  of 1970-Whether subsequent sanction is invalid since an earlier sanction was held to be invalid.

HEADNOTE:      The prosecution  of the  appellant, who was charged for having received  an illegal gratification was held to be bad by the Special Judge, since the sanction for the prosecution under Section  6 of  the Prevention  of Corruption  Act  was granted  by   the  Commissioner   instead  of  the  Standing Committee of  the Hyderabad Municipality. He was, therefore, reinstated in  service and when the Commissioner wrote again for the sanction, the Standing Committee recorded on 17-6-70 to drop  the case  on the ground that it was an old case and the appellant had already been reinstated in service.      The Hyderabad  Municipal Corporation (Amendment) Act II of 1970  came into force on 27-6-70, under which a provision was made  for  the  appointment  of  a  special  officer  to exercise the powers, to perform the duties and discharge the functions of  (a) the Corporation (b) the Standing Committee and (c)  the Commission under the Act. This provision was to be in  force for a period of two years with effect from 3-8- 70 with  a further  provision that  it shall not be extended beyond 31-10-75.      After Act  II of  1970 came  into force,  on 29-7-72  a memorandum was  submitted in  the nature  of a  note to  the Standing Committee  to take a fresh decision on the issue of prosecution of  the appellant  and for  granting sanction to prosecute the  appellant. On 15-5-73, the Standing Committee by its resolution authorised the special officer to sign the sanction order  and to  send it  to Anti-Corruption  Bureau, Hyderabad. In  pursuance of the resolution, a sanction order was passed  on 16-6-73. On 29-11-73 the appellant was placed under  suspension   and  on   11-12-75,  the  special  judge dismissed the petitioner’s objections to the validity of the sanction. The  appellant filed  the appeal by special leave, as the High Court dismissed his criminal revision petition.      Allowing the appeal, the Court ^

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 4  

    HELD :  1. There can be no legal bar to the sanctioning authority revising  its opinion before the sanction order is placed before  the Court.  The validity  of the sanction can only be  considered at  the time when it is filed before the Special Judge. Subsequent sanction having been given, in the present case,  by the competent authority, the plea that the Standing Committee again considered the question but decided to drop  the proceedings  on the  ground that  it was an old case and  the  appellant  had  already  been  reinstated  in service cannot be accepted. [794D-F] 793      2. The  validity of  the sanction  cannot be upheld, as the special  officer who  is entitled  under  the  Hyderabad Municipal Corporation  Act, 1955  as amended  by Act  II  of 1970, has  not given the sanction as a special officer or by himself exercising the powers of the Standing Committee, but issued the sanction order in pursuance of the sanction given by the  Standing Committee  by its resolution dt. 15-5-1973. [796C-D]

JUDGMENT:      CRIMINAL APPELLATE  JURISDICTION :  Criminal Appeal No. 482 of 1976.      Appeal by  Special Leave  from the Judgment dated 20-1- 1976 of  the Andhra  Pradesh High Court in Criminal Revision Case No. 18 of 1976.      R. V. Pillai and H. K. Puri for the Appellant.      P. Parmeshwara Rao and G. N. Rao for the Respondent.      The Judgment of the Court was delivered by      KAILASAM, J.  This appeal  is by  special leave against the judgment  of Andhra  Pradesh  High  Court,  in  Criminal Revision No.  18 of  1976 holding  that the  sanction  order given for  prosecuting the appellant is valid and dismissing his Revision Petition.      The appellant  Parmanand Dass, was appointed as a clerk in Hyderabad Municipal Corporation on 15-1-1951 in the scale of Rs.  40-50 and was promoted to the scale of Rs. 50-105 on 1-9-1956.  A   charge  of   having   received   an   illegal gratification of Rs. 15/- was brought against him and he was suspended on  22-9-1966. On  27-5-1967, the  Commissioner of the Municipal  Corporation  gave  sanction  for  prosecution under section  6 of  the Prevention  of Corruption  Act. The appellant questioned  the validity  of the  sanction on  the ground that the Commissioner was not the competent authority to grant  the  sanction.  The  Special  Judge  accepted  the contention and  found that  the Standing  Committee  of  the Municipality alone can give sanction and as the Commissioner had no  powers, the sanction was not valid. Soon after on 4- 5-1970, the  appellant prayed  for his reinstatement, and on 12-6-1970, the  appellant was  reinstated. The Commissioning on 17-6-1970  again wrote  to the Standing Committee seeking for a  fresh sanction.  On 27-6-1970, the Standing Committee resolved to  drop the  case on the ground that it was an old case and  that the  appellant had already been reinstated in service.      On 27-6-1970,  Act II  of 1970 came into force. The Act provided that  the special  officer appointed  under the Act will exercise  the powers  of the  Standing Committee of the Municipal Corporation.  After the Act came into force on 29- 7-1972 a memorandum in the nature of a 794 note to  the Standing  Committee was prepared requesting the Standing Committee  to take  fresh decision  on the issue of

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 4  

prosecution of  the appellant,  and for granting sanction to prosecute  the   appellant.  On   15-5-1973,  the   Standing Committee by  its resolution  authorised the Special Officer to sign  the sanction  order and  to send  it to  the  Anti- corruption  Bureau,   Hyderabad.   In   pursuance   of   the resolution, a sanction order was passed on 16-6-1973. On 29- 11-1973, the  appellant was  placed under suspension. On 11- 12-1975,  the   Special  Judge  dismissed  the  petitioner’s objection to  the validity  of the  sanction. The  appellant filed Criminal Revision No. 18 of 1976 before the High Court against the  order of  Special  Judge  and  the  High  Court dismissed the  Revision  Petition  on  20-1-1976,  and  this appeal by special leave is against that order.      It was  submitted that  having once  declined to  grant sanction,  a  subsequent  Standing  Committee  cannot  grant sanction on  the same facts. It was contended that the grant of sanction by the Special Officer was not bona fide and was due to  ulterior motive.  We do  not see any merit in any of these submissions.  Sanction given  by the  Commissioner was rightly rejected by the Special Judge on the ground that the Commissioner was  not competent  to grant the sanction. This could not  prevent a  subsequent sanction being given by the Competent Authority, but the plea of the learned counsel was that the  Standing Committee  again considered  the question but decided  to drop  the proceedings  on the ground that it was an  old case and the accused had already been reinstated in service.  There could  be no  objection to  the  Standing Committee again  reconsidering its decision. The validity of the sanction  can only  be considered at the time when it is filed before  the Special Judge. We find that there could be no legal  bar to  the sanctioning authority revising its own opinion before  the sanction  order  is  placed  before  the Court.      On a  consideration  of  the  record  which  ultimately resulted in  the order of the sanction, we find however that the sanction  order cannot  be held to be in accordance with the  law.  It  was  on  27-6-1970,  the  Standing  Committee resolved to  drop further  proceedings. On the same day, Act II of 1970 came into force. Under section 2 of the Hyderabad Municipal Corporations  (Amendment) Act,  1970,  which  came into  force   on  27th  June  1970,  it  was  provided  that notwithstanding  anything   contained   in   the   Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955, there shall be appointed by the State  Government, by notification in the Andhra Pradesh Gazette, a  Special  Officer  to  exercise  the  powers,  to perform the duties and discharge the functions of-           (a) the Corporation; 795           (b) the Standing Committee; and           (c) the Commissioner. This provision  was to be in force for a period of two years with effect  from 3rd August, 1970, with a provision that it shall not  be extended  beyond 31st October, 1975. It is not disputed before  us that  the Amendment Act was not extended to cover  the period  in question. After the introduction of the amending  Act, a  Special Officer  was appointed  by the State Government  by  notification  in  the  Andhra  Pradesh Gazette. The  Special Officer was to exercise the powers and perform the  duties  and  discharge  the  functions  of  the Standing Committee.  After the  date of coming into force of the Amending  Act, the  Special  Officer  can  himself  give sanction as  he is  empowered to  discharge the functions of the Standing  Committee. What happened in this case was that on 29-7-1972  a note  was  prepared  and  submitted  to  the Standing Committee  which is  signed by  one M. Narsing Rao,

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 4  

for  Special   Officer.  The  note  requested  the  Standing Committee  to  take  a  fresh  decision  on  the  issue  for prosecuting  Shri   Parmanand  Dass  for  accepting  illegal gratification under  Section 6(1)  (c) of  the Prevention of Corruption Act  1947. The  Standing Committee  on 15-5-1973, after stating  that the  Standing Committee of the Municipal Corporation  of   Hyderabad  is   the  authority  to  remove Parmanand  Dass   from  his  office  and  that  after  fully considering and examining the materials placed before it, it was of the view that the appellant should be prosecuted in a court of  law for  the said offence, accorded sanction under section 6(1) (c) of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1974. A draft sanction  order was  signed by  the  Special  Officer, Municipal Corporation  of Hyderabad  with a  note that he is the officer  authorised by  the Standing  Committee  of  the Municipal Corporation  of Hyderabad  to  sign  the  sanction order. After  the coming  into force  of Act II of 1970, the Special Officer  is entitled to exercise powers, perform the duties  and   discharge  the   functions  of   the  Standing Committee. If  the Special  Officer acting  as the  Standing Committee had  given the  sanction there  would have been no flaw in the procedure but in this case what we find is, that a note is prepared for the Standing Committee by one Narsing Rao signing  on  behalf  of  the  Special  Officer  and  the Standing  Committee   purporting  to  act  as  the  Standing Committee, granting  sanction on  16-6-1973. When  asked  to explain as to what was the procedure that was adopted by the Special Officer  and the Standing Committee, and whether the Standing Committee  was functioning  apart from  the Special Officer, Mr.  Parmeshwar Rao,  learned counsel appearing for the State  of Andhra  Pradesh, submitted  that  the  Special Officer is himself the Standing 796 Committee and  that  the  note  was  sent  to  the  Standing Committee that  was Special  Officer himself and that he, as the Standing  Committee,  gave  the  sanction.  We  find  it difficult to  accept this  explanation, for,  the High Court proceeded on  the basis  that by  the resolution dated 15-5- 1973, the Standing Committee accorded sanction under section 6(1)(c) of  the Prevention  of Corruption Act and authorised the Special Officer to sign the order according sanction and accordingly the Special Officer issued the order dated 16-6- 1973.  It  appears,  before  the  High  Court,  the  parties proceeded on  the basis that the Standing Committee accorded sanction on  15-5-1973 and authorised the Special Officer to sign the  order and  accordingly the  Special Officer issued the  sanction   order.  The  draft  order  of  the  Standing Committee which is signed by the Special Officer states that he is  the officer authorised by the Standing Committee. The plea of  the learned counsel for the State that the Standing Committee and  the Special  Officer are  one and the same is difficult to  accept in  the circumstances.  As the  Special Officer who  is entitled  under the  Act has  not given  the sanction as  a Special  Officer or by himself exercising the powers of  the Standing  Committee but  issued the  sanction order in  pursuance of  the sanction  given by  the Standing Committee, we  are unable  to uphold  the  validity  of  the sanction. On this ground we accept the appeal, set aside the order of  the High  Court and hold that the sanction granted by order dated 16-6-1973 is not valid in law. S.R.                                         Appeal allowed. 797