Ravi Datt Kharaiti Ram vs The State

Chopra, J.—Ravi Datt Appellant has been convicted u/s 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act (II of 1947) by Special Judge, Kapurthala and sectenced to six months'' R.I. He appeals against his conviction and sectence.

Ravi Datt was posted as Sub-Divisional Clerk in S.D and O.s office (E and M) at Kapurthala. On 20-11-1952 a money order for Rs. 428/3/- reached this office in payment of bills for electricity supplied at railway station. Phagwara. The money order came from the Divisional Pay and Accounts Officer, Nor-them Railway, Ferozpur. Ravi Datt, as Sub-Divisional cleak of the payee''s office is said to have received the payment and embezzled the same.

It is common ground between the parties that this amount was not entered anywhere in the books kept in the State. There is thus no dispute that the money was embezzled and the only question is as to who did it. The Appellant denied to have received the payment and also his signature on the money order receipt.

Counsel for the Appellant has taken certain legal objections to the validity of the trial. He contends that sanction to prosecute the Appellant though tendered in evidence and exhibited, was not duly proved. He means to say that some evidence must have been led to prove that the document bore signature of the authority by which the sanction was accorded.

Reliance in this connection is placed on Superintendent and Remembrancer of Legal Affairs Vs. Moazzem Hossain, the point has been discussed at length by a Division Bench of this Court, of which I was a member, in - ''State v. Gurdev Singh, AIR 1956 Pepsu 11 (B). There it was held that sanction allowing prosecution is a document that falls u/s 74, Evidence Act and, therefore, it requires no formal proof. Production of its copy or original is a sufficient compliance of the law. The objection is, consequently, overruled.

Next, it is urged that the sanction is not valid inasmuch as it does not disclose the facts of the case of that the sanctioning authority did apply its mind to the same before according it. The sanction is in the following terms:

Whereas, the Superintendent of Police, District kapurthala has brought to may notice that B. Ravi Datt S.D.C.E. and M. Kapurthala 9now convicted and sentenced to in other case against him at present on bail) has committed an offence by contravening the provision Act, 1947.

An (And) whereas, I am satisfied of the commission of the said offence by the Police Record of case F.I.R. No. 10 dated 3-2-54 P.S Kotwali Kapurthala:

Therefore, I, A.C. Malhotra, Chief Engineer, P.w.D., Pepsu, Patiala do hereby accord sanction as required by Section 5(2) of the Preventive (Prevention) of Corruption Act, 1947 for the prosecution of B. Ravi Datt S.D.C.E. and M. Kapurthala u/s 5, Preventive (Prevention) of Corruption. Act. Report No. 10 to which reference is made in the above order, is based upon a letter issued by the Deputy Secretary to Government (P.W.D.) to the Superintendent of Police and contains the facts of the case. The letter and so also the report state that Ravi Datt was alleged to have received the money-order for Rs. 428/3/- sent by the Divisional Pay and Accounts Office, Northern Railway, Ferozpur, for payment of the outstanding electric bills of Phagwara Railway station, and to have misappropriated the same to his own use.

The Police record relating to this file No. 10 was forwarded to the Chief Engineer and it wag on its perusal that he accorded the sanction. The police record must have contained the first information report, the letter on which it was based and the investigation held by the police thereon. Thus, the sanction itself bears sufficient evidence that the sanctioning authority had before it the) facts of the case and that the sanction was given in respect of the facts constituting the offence, charged in the present case.

Section 6, Prevention of Corruption Act, does not require the sanction to be in any particular form, or that it should be in writing. However desirable it may be that the facts should be referred to on the face of the sanction, the mere lack of it does not render the sanction invalid. In that case, the prosecution may prove by extraneous evidence that the material facts constituting the offence were placed before the sanctioning authority and that the facts related to the offence charged. In the present case, the sanction itself, contains sufficient evidence to that effect.

The facts of the cases relied upon by Shril K.N. Tiwari, learned Counsel for the Appellant, were very much different and, therefore, they are of no help to the Appellant. In - AIR 1948 82 (Privy Council) the '' sanction did not contain any reference to the facts constituting the offence. It simply contained the name of the accused and the provision of law under which the sanction was given.

Reference ''to an� endorsement from the District Magistrate, Sholapur'' was also made in this sanction, but neither the endorsement nor the report of the Sub-Inspector to the District Superintendent of Police, on which the endorsement was said to have been made, was put .in evidence by the prosecution. It was, therefore, held:

In the present case there is nothing on .the face of the sanction, and no extraneous evidence, to show that the sanctioning authority knew the facts alleged to constitute a breach of the Order, and the sanction is invalid.

In Karim Bux Vs. Rex, the Superintendent of Police sanctioned the prosecution by merely writing the two words "prosecution sanctioned". On the evidence led by the prosecution, the learned Judge was not satisfied that the Superintendent of Police had full" knowledge of the facts upon which sanction to prosecute the accused was sought or that-the sanction was deliberate decision of the sanctioning authority that the accused should be prosecuted....

In Madan Mohan Singh Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, also, the facts constituting the offence did not appear on inference that he was made to depose against the-face of the sanction. The prosecution, ins- fact stead of proving, deliberately withheld them from the Couirt Mukherjea J., following the decision in. the Privy Council Case, referred to above, observed as follows;

The burden of proving that the requisite sanction has been obtained rests on the prose-cution, and such burden includes proof that the sanctioning, authority had given the sanction in reference to the facts on which the proposed prosecution was to be based; and these facts might appear, on the face of the sanction or might be proved by extraneous evidence.

In the present case the facts constituting the offence do not appear on the face of the letter Ex. P-l0l It was consequently incumbent upon the prosecution to prove by other evidence that the material facts constituting the offence were placed before the sanctioning authority. This they did not attempt to do.

As already pointed out the first information report, the letter of the Superintending Engineer, (E and M).to the Deputy Secretary to Government (P.W.D), the letter of the Deputy Secretary '' to the Superintendent of Police, on which the case Was registered, have all been placed on the record and duly proved. It was on the perusal of these that the Chief Engineer accorded sanction-to prosecute the Appellant. The objection is, consequently, rejected.

On merits, I have no hesitation to agree with the learned Special Judge that receipt of the money order by the Appellant is fully established. The money order was disbursed by Arjan Singh postman. He has sworn to the effect that he paid the amount to Ravi Datt who was personally known to him and to whom previously also he had made payment of several money orders. Arjan-Singh further testifies to the receipt Ex. PO having been signed by the Appellant in his presence. That he is an independent witness cannot and is not being disputed.

Counsel however, urges that as the money order was addressed to the S.D.O., Kapurthala, it should not have been paid to the Appellant who was only a clerk in the office. Arjan Singh explains this by saying that in case of money orders addressed to officers payments used to be made to their clerks and signatures of those clerks were obtained and that this had been his practice for the last twenty years. He further adds that previously also he had been disbursing money orders to the accused, which were addressed officially to the S.D.O.

Even if it be conceded that disbursement of the money order in question to the senior most clerk in the office of the S.D.O., to whom it was addressed, was somewhat irregular, the fact re mains that payment was made to the Appellant and that too in his official capacity. It is next urged that Arjan Singh, though present, was not examined on several hearings, which indicates that he was not willing witness and his statement was! an extorted one.

The statement of the witness was first started to be recorded on 28-9-1954, but it could not be continued and completed as the record relating to his evidence had not been received. On the ''next three hearings also, his statement could not be recorded because the record was not available.

No question regarding any pressure having been exerted on the witness was put to him in cross-examination. The: mere fact that his statement could not be recorded earlier does not lead to the

That the particular money order, along with several others, was entrusted to Arjan Singh on 20-11-1952 is clear from the ''Register of Money Orders Received''. Relevant entries in the register are proved by Harb.ans Lal, Clerk, Post Office, Kapurthala, to be in the handwriting of one Labh Singh who was on leave preparatory to retirement. The objection that Labh Singh was not produced and that the entries were not put to Arjan Singh, has no force. The entry in the official, register was" made by a public servant in the discharge of his official duty; the entry, therefore, is itself a relevant fact as provided by Section 35, Evidence Act.

A copy of the entry or production of the original was a sufficient proof thereof, and no further evidence need have been produced to prove its contents. Arjan Singh was examined before this register was produced'' by Harbans Lal. It would have been better if Arjan Singh had been enquired about his writing on this register acknowledging receipts of the money orders for disbursement, bull the absence of it does not detract the evidentiary value of the register .or the entries therein.

Shri P.C. Mathur, S.D.O. under whom the Appellant worked as a clerk for over two years and who therefore was fully acquainted with his. handwriting and signature, states that Ex.P.O. bears the signature of Ravi Datt, Appellant.

Shri K.S. Puri, Government Handwriting Expert, compared the questioned signature with the specimen signatures of the Appellant and expressed the opinion that they tallied in essential characteristics and appeared to have been written by one and the same person. In the face of the reliable and convincing evidence, both direct and circumstantial, produced by the prosecution, no weight can be attached to the opinion of an expert examined in defence.

The charge is fully brought homo to the Appellant. The appeal is, consequently, dismissed.