Lachhman Singh and anr. vs State

K.P.S. Sandhu, J. (Oral)

Lachhman Singh appellant and his brotherinlaw Prem Singh appellant have come up in appeal against their conviction recorded by the learned Special Judge, Chandigarh vide his order dated 1.5.1982. Both the appellants stand sentenced as under :

Lachhman Singh R.I. for six years and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/, in default R.I. for three months u/s 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. R.I. for two years and to pay a fine of Rs. 100/, in default R.I. for one month under section 420 IPC. R.I. for six months under section 129B IPC. R.I. for three years and to pay a fine of Rs. 100/, in default R.I. for one month u/s 468 IPC.

Prem Singh R.I. for three years and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/ in default R.I. for three months u/s 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act read with section 120B IPC. R.I. for two years and to pay a fine of Rs. 100/, in default R.I. for one month u/s 468 IPC.

In Crl. Appeal No. 323SB of 1982, Lachhman Singh appellant aforesaid has come up in appeal against the order of the same Special Judge of the same date wherein he has been convicted and sentenced as under :

Lachhman Singh R.I. for four years and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/, in default R.I. for 3 months under section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. R.I. for two years and to pay a fine of Rs. 100/, in default R.I. for one month under section 468 IPC. R.I. for two years and to pay a fine of Rs. 100/, in default R.I. for one month under section 420 IPC. R.I. for six months under section 120B IPC. R.I. for six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 100/, in default R.I. for one month each under sections 465/471/467/477A IPC.

The sentences of the appellants were ordered to run concurrently.

Since the same law point is involved in both Crl. Appeals No. 322SB and 323SB of 1982, these would be disposed of by this order in Crl. Appeal No. 322SB of 1982.

In the year 1975, appellant Lachhman Singh was employed as an Upper Division Clerk in the office of the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Chandigarh. He was incharge of settlement of claims and ultimate disbursement of the provident fund amounts of various workers. He is alleged to have tampered with certain records and had withdrawn certain amounts in an illegal manner. According to the procedure laid down, accounts of various workers were maintained in the office of the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Chandigarh. Lachhman Singh appellant used to prepare the balance sheets of their accounts and the payable amounts to workers were settled by him. He was also required to send the statement to the disbursement officials branch where the cheques were prepared and dispatched to the payees. In the accounts of certain employees he inflated the amounts with the connivance of his coaccused. He withdrew that amount and put the same to the personal use. So in a case registered on the complaint made to the C.B.I. by Shri K.L. Lamba, Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Sector 17D, Chandigarh, Lachhman Singh appellant was tried in two cases by the learned Special Judge which ended in the aforesaid conviction and sentence of the appellant and his coaccused. In both the cases one sanction Exhibit PW 5/C dated 7.2.1979 was obtained by the prosecution from the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Chandigarh. These appeals can be disposed of on a short ground regarding the validity of the sanction Exhibit PW 5/C.

Shri B.L. Kapoor, PW5 in Crl. A. No. 323SB of 1982 Head Clerk of the office of the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Chandigarh, during trial deposed in the Court that Lachhman Singh appellant at the time of the alleged commission of the offence was in the scale of Rs. 33010560 with retrospective effect from 1.1.1973 and the Central Government was the appointing authority for all the posts carrying the maximum scale of pay of Rs. 500/ or more. Mr. H.S. Gill, learned counsel for the appellants rightly submits that it follows that the removing authority in the year 197475 was the Central Government as far as Lachhman Singh appellant is concerned. So it was the Central Government which was competent to accord sanction for the prosecution of this appellant and not the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner. Mr. H.S. Brar, learned counsel for the Union Territory of Chandigarh has placed on file two notifications S.O. No. 269 of 11.1.1978 and S.O. No. 1318 of 18.4.1978. According to these notifications it was in the year 1978 that the Regional and Central Provident Fund Commissioners were vested with the powers which were exercisable by the Central Government previously. So to my mind these notifications in way support the contention raised by Mr. H.S. Gill that in the year 197475 the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner was not competent authority to appoint or dismiss employees within the scale of Rs. 33010560. A bare reading of section 6A of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 shows that only that authority was competent to accord the sanction which was competent to remove the public servant at the time when the offence was alleged to have been committed. Mr. Gill, learned counsel for the appellant has placed reliance on The State of Rajasthan v. Dr. A.K. Datta, AIR 1981 SC 20 wherein their Lordships of the Supreme Court have been pleased to hold as under :

"The High Court found that prior to amendment the competent authority to accord sanction for offences investigated by the Delhi Special Police Establishment was the Department of Personnel (Karmik Vibhag), Cabinet Secretariat where such sanction was required to be given by the Central Government. Even after the amendment, as entry 32A would show, sanction for prosecution of any person for any offence not investigated by the Delhi Special Police Establishment was to be accorded by the administrative Ministry concerned where such sanction was required to be accorded by the Central Government. The High Court has held that in the absence of any sanction granted for the prosecution of the delinquent either by the Ministry of Education or by the Department of Personnel (Karmik Vibhag) the Special Judge had no jurisdiction to take cognizance of the offences alleged against the delinquent. The Government could not rely on an office memorandum dated 6.10.1948 because the Government of India (Allocation of Business) Rules, 1961 superseded previous rules and orders on the subject."

Consequently, I hold that sanction Exhibit PW 5/C is not a proper and valid sanction. Resultantly both Crl. Appeals Nos. 322Sb and 323SB of 1982 are allowed on this short ground. However, it is open to the prosecution to obtain a proper sanction for the prosecution of the appellants and their coaccused, if so advised.

Appeals allowed.