9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved
1. Relevant date for a valid sanction u/s 6 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947. 2. Necessity of sanction from multiple authorities if the accused holds multiple public offices. 3. Identification of the sanctioning authority for prosecution. 4. Whether an MLA is a public servant u/s 21(12)(a) IPC. 5. Whether an MLA is a public servant u/s 21(3) and 21(7) IPC. 6. Necessity of sanction for prosecution of an MLA. 7. Identification of the competent authority to remove an MLA. Summary Issue (a): Relevant Date for a Valid Sanction The court held that the relevant date for determining the necessity of a valid sanction u/s 6 of the 1947 Act is the date when the court is called upon to take cognizance of the offence. If the accused has ceased to be a public servant by that date, no sanction is required. This was affirmed by citing precedents like S.A. Venkataraman v. The State and C.R. Bansi v. State of Maharashtra. Issue (b) and (c): Necessity of Sanction from Multiple Authorities The court concluded that if the accused holds multiple offices, sanction is only required from the authority competent to remove him from the office alleged to have been abused. The court rejected the argument that sanction from each authority of every office held by the accused is necessary. The decision in Air Commodore Kailash Chand v. The State (S.P.E. Hyderabad) was distinguished, and it was clarified that the sanction must come from the authority related to the office alleged to have been misused. Issue (d): MLA as a Public Servant u/s 21(12)(a) IPC The court held that an MLA is not a public servant u/s 21(12)(a) IPC. The historical evolution of Section 21 and the recommendations of the Santhanam Committee were considered, which did not include MLAs in the definition of 'public servant.' The court also emphasized that MLAs are not in the pay of the Government (executive) but receive their remuneration from the Legislature. Issue (e): MLA as a Public Servant u/s 21(3) and 21(7) IPC The court found that MLAs do not fall within the purview of Section 21(3) or 21(7) IPC. Clause (3) pertains to persons discharging adjudicatory functions, which does not apply to MLAs. Clause (7) relates to persons empowered to place or keep any person in confinement, which also does not apply to MLAs. Issue (f) and (g): Necessity of Sanction for MLA and Identification of Sanctioning Authority Given that an MLA is not a public servant within the meaning of Section 21 IPC, no sanction is necessary for prosecuting an MLA for offences alleged to have been committed. Consequently, the question of identifying the competent sanctioning authority becomes academic and was left open by the court. Conclusion The court allowed the appeal, set aside the order of the Special Judge discharging the accused, and directed that the trial proceed further. The case was transferred to the High Court of Bombay for expeditious disposal. The court emphasized the importance of a speedy trial in the interest of justice for both the prosecution and the accused.
|
