# JASWANT SINGH v. THE STATE OF PUNJAB

- **Citation:** [1958] 1 S.C.R. 762
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1958
- **Case number:** Criminal Appeal No. 66 of 1954
- **Bench:** B. P. Sinha, J. L. KAPuR
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/jaswant-singh-v-the-state-of-punjab-1424
- **Pages:** 7

## Headnote

(1958]
Criminal trial-Sanction in respect of one offence-Trial
for two offentes requiring sanction-If trial wholly void--
Prevention of Corrupt,!on Act, 1947 (II of1947), ss. 5 (1) (a),
5(1) (d) and 6.
Sanction wa.s given under s. 6 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, for the prosecution of the appellant for
having received illegal gratification from one Pal Singh.
He was charged with and tried for two offences under s.
5(1) (a) of the Act for habitually accepting or obtaining
illegal gratification and under s. 5(1)
(d) for receiving
illegal gratification from Pal Singh. The Special Judge
found both charges proved and convited the appellant. On
appeal, the High Court held that the appellant could neither
be tried nor convicted of the offence under s, 5(1) (a) u no
sanction had been given in respect of it but upheld the
conviction for the offence under s. 5(1) (d) for which sanction had been given. It was argued that the conviction even
for the offence under s. 5(1)(d) was illegal as the trial was
wholly void and without jurisdiction :
Held, that the contention that the trial for two offences·
reqtiiring sanction is wholly void, where the sanction is
granted'for only one offence and not for the other, is unsustainable. The want of sanction for the offence of ,habitually accepting bribes does not make the taking of cognizance of the offence of taking a bribe from Pal Singh void
nor the trial for that offence illegal and the Court a Court
without jurisdiction.
Hori Ram Singh v. The Crown, (1939) F.C.R. 159 and
Basir-ul-Huq v. The State of West Bengal, (1953) S.C.R.
836, referred to.
CRIMINAL
APPELLATE
JuRISDICTION:
Criminal
Appeal No. 66 of 1954.
Appeal from the judgment and order dated the
31st December, 1953, of the Punjab High Court in
Criminal Appeal No. 540 of 1953, arising out of the
judgment and order dated the 14th September, 1953,
of the Court of Special Judge, Amritsar, in Corruption Case No. 13/1-10/3 of 1953.
Shaukat Hussain, for the appellant.
Gopa! Singh and T. M. Sen, for the respondent.
1957. October 25. The following judgment of the
Court was delivered by·
S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
763
KAPUR J .-The sole point in this appeal against
1957
the judgment and order of the Punjab High Court proJaswant Singh
nounced on December 31, 1953, is the validity and The Stat;~1 Pullhh
effect of the sanction given under s. 6( 1) of the Pre-
-
vention of Corruption Act (Act 2 of 1947), hereinKapurJ.
after termed the Act.
The .appellant was prosecuted for receiving illegal
gratification and the charge ~gainst him was in the
following terms :
"That, you, Jaswant Singh, while employed as a
Patwari, Fatehpur Rajputan habitually accepted or
obtained for yourself illegal gratification and that you
received in the sum of Rs. 50 on 19-3.-1953 at_Subzi
Mandi Amritsar from Pal Singh P. W. as a reward
for forwarding the application Es. P. A. with your
recommendation for helping Santa Singh father of
P1-l Singh in the allotment of Ahata No. 10 situate at
village Fatehpur Rajputan and thereby committed
an offence of Criminal misconduct in the discharge of
y®ur duty mentioned in section 5(1) (a) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, punishable under
sub-section 2 of section 5 of the aforesaid Act and
within my cognizance."
The Special Judge found that the appellant had
accepted illegal gratification from Pal Singh. Hazara
Singh, Harnam Singh, Joginder Singh, Atma Singh,
Hari Singh and Ganda Singh and that he had received RS. 50 from Pal Singh 'on March 19, 1953, at Subzi
Mandi, Amritsar. He then held: ·
"The charge under section 5 ( 1) (a) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, has been established
against him beyond reasonable doubt. He is guilty
of an offence punishable under sub-section (2) of section 5 of the said Act."
The appellant took an appeal to the High Court of the
Punjab and Dulat J. held that taking into consideration the sanction which will be quoted hereinafter :
"The af)pellant could neither have been charge

## Text

1957
October 2S.
762
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
JASWANT SINGH
v.
THE STATE OF PUNJAB
(B. P. SINHA and J. L. KAPuR, JJ:)
(1958]
Criminal trial-Sanction in respect of one offence-Trial
for two offentes requiring sanction-If trial wholly void--
Prevention of Corrupt,!on Act, 1947 (II of1947), ss. 5 (1) (a),
5(1) (d) and 6.
Sanction wa.s given under s. 6 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, for the prosecution of the appellant for
having received illegal gratification from one Pal Singh.
He was charged with and tried for two offences under s.
5(1) (a) of the Act for habitually accepting or obtaining
illegal gratification and under s. 5(1)
(d) for receiving
illegal gratification from Pal Singh. The Special Judge
found both charges proved and convited the appellant. On
appeal, the High Court held that the appellant could neither
be tried nor convicted of the offence under s, 5(1) (a) u no
sanction had been given in respect of it but upheld the
conviction for the offence under s. 5(1) (d) for which sanction had been given. It was argued that the conviction even
for the offence under s. 5(1)(d) was illegal as the trial was
wholly void and without jurisdiction :
Held, that the contention that the trial for two offences·
reqtiiring sanction is wholly void, where the sanction is
granted'for only one offence and not for the other, is unsustainable. The want of sanction for the offence of ,habitually accepting bribes does not make the taking of cognizance of the offence of taking a bribe from Pal Singh void
nor the trial for that offence illegal and the Court a Court
without jurisdiction.
Hori Ram Singh v. The Crown, (1939) F.C.R. 159 and
Basir-ul-Huq v. The State of West Bengal, (1953) S.C.R.
836, referred to.
CRIMINAL
APPELLATE
JuRISDICTION:
Criminal
Appeal No. 66 of 1954.
Appeal from the judgment and order dated the
31st December, 1953, of the Punjab High Court in
Criminal Appeal No. 540 of 1953, arising out of the
judgment and order dated the 14th September, 1953,
of the Court of Special Judge, Amritsar, in Corruption Case No. 13/1-10/3 of 1953.
Shaukat Hussain, for the appellant.
Gopa! Singh and T. M. Sen, for the respondent.
1957. October 25. The following judgment of the
Court was delivered by·
S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
763
KAPUR J .-The sole point in this appeal against
1957
the judgment and order of the Punjab High Court proJaswant Singh
nounced on December 31, 1953, is the validity and The Stat;~1 Pullhh
effect of the sanction given under s. 6( 1) of the Pre-
-
vention of Corruption Act (Act 2 of 1947), hereinKapurJ.
after termed the Act.
The .appellant was prosecuted for receiving illegal
gratification and the charge ~gainst him was in the
following terms :
"That, you, Jaswant Singh, while employed as a
Patwari, Fatehpur Rajputan habitually accepted or
obtained for yourself illegal gratification and that you
received in the sum of Rs. 50 on 19-3.-1953 at_Subzi
Mandi Amritsar from Pal Singh P. W. as a reward
for forwarding the application Es. P. A. with your
recommendation for helping Santa Singh father of
P1-l Singh in the allotment of Ahata No. 10 situate at
village Fatehpur Rajputan and thereby committed
an offence of Criminal misconduct in the discharge of
y®ur duty mentioned in section 5(1) (a) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, punishable under
sub-section 2 of section 5 of the aforesaid Act and
within my cognizance."
The Special Judge found that the appellant had
accepted illegal gratification from Pal Singh. Hazara
Singh, Harnam Singh, Joginder Singh, Atma Singh,
Hari Singh and Ganda Singh and that he had received RS. 50 from Pal Singh 'on March 19, 1953, at Subzi
Mandi, Amritsar. He then held: ·
"The charge under section 5 ( 1) (a) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, has been established
against him beyond reasonable doubt. He is guilty
of an offence punishable under sub-section (2) of section 5 of the said Act."
The appellant took an appeal to the High Court of the
Punjab and Dulat J. held that taking into consideration the sanction which will be quoted hereinafter :
"The af)pellant could neither have been charged
nor convicted of what is probably a much graver
offence of habitually accepting bribes."
764
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
(19581
19$7
But he held that sanction was valid qua the charge
Janvant s.in1h of accepting illegal gratification of Rs. 50 from Pal
r1i, Stat:~/ Pun/abSingh. The conviction was therefore upheld but the
-
sentence was reduced to the period already underKapur J.
gone and the sentence of fine maintained.
The argument raised by the appellant in this court
is that as the sanction was confined to illegal gratification of Rs. 50 paid by Pal Singh and the charge was
for habitually accepting illegal gratification the trial
was without jurisdiction and the appellant could not
be convicted even for the offence which was mentioned in the sanction. The sanction was in the following terms:
"Whereas I am satisfied that Jaswant Singh Patwari son of Gurdial Singh Kamboh of village Ajaibwali had accepted an illegal gratification of Rs. 50 in
5 currency notes of Rs. 10 denomination each from
one Pal Singh son of S. Santa Singh of village Fatehpur Rajputan, Tehsil Amritsar for making a favourable report on an application for allotment of an ahata
to S. Santa Singh father of the said S. Pal Singh.
And whereas the evidence available in this case
clearly discloses that the said S. Jaswant Singh Patwari had committed an offence under Section 5 of
the Prevention of Corruption Act.
Now therefore, I, N. N. Kashyap, Esquire l.C.S.
Deputy Commissioner, Asr, as required by Section 6
of the Prevention of Corruption Act 9f 1947, hereby
•-..,
sanction the prosecution of the said S. Jaswant Singh
Patwari under section 5 of the said Act."
Section 6 ( 1) of the Act provides for sanction as follows:
"No Court shall take cognizance of an offence
punishable under Section 161 or Section 165 of the
Indian Penal Code or under sub-section ( 2) of section
5 of this Act, alleged to have been committed by a public servant, except with the previous sanction."
Section 5 ( 1) (a) relates to a case of a publk servant if
he habitually accepts illegal gratification and s. 5( 1)
(d) if he obtains for himself any valuable thing or
S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
765
pecuniary advantage. The contention comes to this
19S7
that as the sanction was only for receiving Rs. 50 as
Jaswant Singh
illegal gratification from Pal Singh and therefore an The Stat:~/ PunJal>
-0ffence under s. 5(1)(d) the prosecution, the charge
-
and conviction should have been under that provision
KapurJ.
and had that been so there would have been no defect
in the jurisdiction of the court trying the case nor.any
defect in the conviction but as the appellant was tried
under the charge of being a habitual receiver of bribes
and the. sanction was only for one single act of receiving illegal gratification the trial was wholly void as
it was a trial by a court without jurisdiction.
The sanction under the Act is not ·intended to be
nor is an automatic formality and it is essential that
the provisions in regard to sanction should be observ- .
ed with complete strictness; Basdeo Agarwala v. King
Emperor ( 1). The object of the provision for sanctioIIB" is that the authority giving the sanction should
be able to consider for itself the evidence before it
comes to a conclusion that the prosecution in the circumstances
be
sanctioned
or
forbidden.
In
Gokulchand Dwarkadas Morarka v. The King (2)
the JudicialCommittee of the Privy Council also-took
a similar view when it observed:
"In their Lordships' view, to comply with the
provisions of· cl. 23 it must be proved that the· sanction was given in respect of the facts constituting the
offence charged. It is plainly desirable that the facts
should be referred to on the face of the sanction, but
this is not essential, since cl. 23 does not require the
sanction to be in any particular form, nor even to be
in writing. But if the facts constituting the offence
charged are not shown on the face of the sanction, the
prosecution must prove by extraneous evidence that
those facts were placed before the sanctioning authority~ The sanction to prosecute is an important matter; it constitutes a condition precedent to the institution of the prpsecution and the Government have an
absolute discretion to grant or withhold their sanction."
(t) (194') F.C.R. 93, 98.
(2) (1948) L.R. 7S I.A. 30, 37.
766
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1958J
1957
It should be clear from the form of the sanction that
Ja1wan1 s1n8h the sanctioning authority considered the evidence
Ifie Statev~I Punjab before it and after a consideration of all the circum-
-
stances of the case sanctioned the prosecution, and
KapurJ.
therefore unless the matter, can be proved by other
evidence, in the sanction itself the facts should be
referred to to indicate that the sanctioning authority
had applied its mind to the facts and circumstances of
the case. In Yu.sofalli Mulla Noorbhoy v. The King
(') it was held that a valid sanction on separate
charges of hoarding and profiteering was essential
to give the court jurisdiction to try the charge. Without such sanction the prosecution would be a nullity
and the trial without jurisdiction.
In the present case the sanction strictly construed
indicates the consideration by the sanctioning authority of the facts relating to the receiving of the illegal gratification from Pal Singh and therefore the
appellant could only be validly tried for that offence.
The contention that a trial for two offences requiring
sanction is wholly void, where the sanction is granted
for one offence and not for the other, is in our opinion
unsustainable. Section 6( 1) of the Act bars the jurisdiction of the court to take cognizance of an offence
for which previous sanction is required and has not
been given. The prosecution for offence under s. 5(1)
(d) therefore is not barred because the proceedings
are not without previous sanction which was validly
given for the offence of receiving a bribe from Pal
Singh, but the offence of habitually receiving illegal
gratification could not be taken cognizance of and the
prosecution and trial for that offence was void for
want of sanction which is a condition precedent for
the courts taking cognizance of the offence alleged to
be committed and therefore the High Court has rightly set aside the conviction for that offence. In Hori
Ram Singh v. The Crown( 2 ) the charges against a
public servant were under ss. 409 and 477A, Indian
Penal Code, one for dishonestly converting and misappropriating certain medicines entrusted to the public servant and the other for wilful omission with intent to defraud to record certairt entries in the account
(') [1949] L.R. 761.A. U8.
(2) (1939] F.C.R. 159.
S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
767
1
d
Th
.J9Sl
books of the hospital where he was emp oye .
us
two distinct offences were committed in the course of
laswant Stngt.
the same transaction in which the one under s. 477 A, T1te Stat:'oJ Pu• jalf
Indian Penal Code, required sanction under s. 270( l)
-
of the Government of India Act and the other under
Kapllr J.
s. 409, Indian Penal Code, did not. But the bar to,
taking cognizance of the former offence was not considered a bar to the tt;'ial for an offence, for which nosanction was required and therefore the proceedings.
under s. 477A were quashed as being without jurisdiction but the proceedings under s. 409 Indian Penal
Code were allowed to proceed. Similarly the Supreme·
Court in Basir-ul-Huq v. The State of West Bengal;
(1) held s. 195, Criminal Procedure Code to be no bar·
to the trial for a distinct offence not requirmg sane-.
tion although disclosed by the same facts if the offenceis l;lOt included in the ambit of an offence requiring
such sanction. The want of sanction for the offence
of habitually accepting bribes therefore does not make
the taking of cognizance of the offence. of taking a
bribe of Rs. 50 from Pal Singh void nor the trial forthat offence illegal and the court a court without
jurisdiction.
The submission next raised is that the evidence in
support of being habitually a receiver of bribes has
caused serious prejudice to the defence of the appellant but· no such prejudice .has been shown nor does
the judgment of the High Court which has proceeded
on the evidence in support of the charge of Pal Singh's
trfinsaction, indicate the existence of any prejudice
and there was nothing indicated before us leading to
the conclusion of prejudice or to consequent failure of
justice.
The High Court came to the conclusion that the
trial for the offence of habitually accepting illegal
gratification could not be validly tried and evidence
led on that charge could not be considered but the
e-0nviction of receiving a bribe of Rs.. 50 from Pal
Singh is well founded and also that the appellant has:
not been prejudiced in the conduct of his defence.
(I) [1953] S.C.R. 836.
768
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1958)
19S7
No arguments were addressed to this court on the
1asw01t1 Singh correctness of the finding of the High Court in regard
n.. Stat•v~f PUlf/ab to the conviction for receiving illegal gratification
--
from Pal Singh. We agree with the opinion of the
Kapur/.
High Court that the offence under s. 5(1)(d) of
receiving illegal bribe of Rs. 50 has been made out and
would therefore dismiss this appeal.
1957
October 28.
Appeal dismissed.
SARJUG RAI AND OTHERS
II.
THE STATE OF BIHAR
(B. P. SINHA and J. L. KAPUR, JJ.)
Criminal Revisfun-Enhancement of sentence-PoweT of
High Com"t-Enhancement beyond the maximum sentence
imposable by trial Court-Code of Criminal Procedure (V
of 1898), ss. 31 and 439.
The appellants were tried before an Assistant Ses8ions
Judge for the offence of dacoity under s. 395 Indian Penal
Code. Under s. 31 (3) Code of Criminal Procedure, (as it
then stood) the Assistant Sessions Judge could award a
maximum sentence of seven years rigorous imprisonmel}t.
He convicted the appellants and sentenced them to five years
rigorous inprisonment each. The appellants appealed to
the High Court, and the High Court, in its revisional jurisdiction, issued a notice to the appellants for enhancement
of sentence. The High Court dismissed the appeal and
enhanced the sentence to ten years rigorous imprisonment.
Held, that the High Court had, in its revisional jurisdiction under s. 439 Code of Criminal Procedure, the power to
enhance the sentence beyond the limit of the maximum
sentence that could have been imposed by the trial C-0urt.
Bed Ra; v. The State of Uttar Pradesh, (1955) I S.C.R.
583, referred to.
CRIMINAL
APPELLATE
JURISDICTION:
Criminal
Appeal No. 165 of 1957.
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and
order dated the 4th August, 1955, of the Patna High
Court in Criminal Appeal No. 699 of 1953 with Criminal Revision No. 205 of 1954, arising out of the judgment and order dated the 12th December, 1953, of