In Re: Devanugraham

Panchapagesa Sastri, J.—This is an appeal by G. Do-vanugraham, Food Inspector of the Corporation of Madras, against his conviction and

sentence by the Fifth Presidency Magistrate for an offence u/s 161, Penal Code. He has been sentenced to rigorous imprisonment foe six months

and to a fine of Rs. 800.

Learned counael for the appellant raised a number of points. Firstly he contended that the evidence did not make oat the offence. Secondly he

urged that the investigation was by an Inspector who had not the requisite sanction to act under the Prevention of Corruption Act. Thirdly he

contended that the evidence had not been recorded in extenso by the Presidency Magistrate. Lastly he urged that the sanction granted by the

Commissioner of the Madras Corporation evidenced by EX. P 6 was not legal.

It is conceded by the State Prosecute that if the sanction granted is illegal then the conviction cannot stand. The ground of objection urged

against the validity of the sanction is that the facts relating to the alleged offence were not placed before the sanctioning authority or rather that there

is no evidence on behalf of the prosecution that the facts were so placed. Reliance was placed on the decision of the Judicial Committee reported

in AIR 1948 82 (Privy Council) . That judgment decides that there should be evidence either from the order granting the sanction or other

documentary evidence placed before the Court or even oral evidence that the facts were placed before the officer from whom sanction was

sought. In the present case, Ex. P-6 refers to the particular offences for which sanction is being accorded, and also the name of the per-son; but

apart from these two matters, there is nothing to indicate that the facts which are said to have given rise to the offence were placed before the

officer. There is no independent evidence on record that such facts were placed before him. No doubt there is a reference in Ex. P-6 to a letter

dated 28-3-1949 with reference to which sanction is being accorded. That letter, however, was not placed before Oourt; nor is there any request

made to mo here for allowing additional evidence by way of placing that letter before thia Court. What was urged by the State Prosecutor was that

the heading in Ex. P-6 showed that the conduct of Devanugra-ham under suspension was the subject-matter of the reference in relation to

acceptance of illegal gratification"". From this it was sought to be argued that there was sufficient compliance with the requirements of the law as

laid down by the Judicial Committee in the case already referred to. I cannot agree with this view. It follows that it is not proved that the sanction

accorded as legal. If so, the conviction cannot stand. In this view, it is unnecessary to deal with the question as to whether the offence is brought

home to the appellant; nor ia it necessary to refer to the other contentions raised by the learned advocate for the appellant.

In the result the conviction and sentence are set aside, and the appellant is acquitted. Fine, if paid, will be refunded.