# LAKSHMI SHANKAR SRIVASTAVA v. STATE (DELHI ADMINISTRATION) - **Citation:** [1979] 2 S.C.R. 348 - **Court:** Supreme Court of India - **Decided:** 1978-11-21 - **Bench:** P. S. Kailasam, D. A. Desai, A. D. KoSHAL - **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/lakshmi-shankar-srivastava-v-state-delhi-administration-7520 - **Pages:** 9 ## Headnote A11pea/, abofr n1ent of-An appt•al does not abate on the dtll!/J af tlte occr.1st'd wllen !~are is granted to the near rrlath·e to continue thr appea!--Crimlnal Procedure Code 1973 (Act If of 1974), Section 394(2) r/H-· .'Y!C. 8(3) an.i 9 oj the Criniinal Law A1ne11dme11t Act. Sanction for pro.sccution-Ef]ect of the order issued by S.U.O. 631 by fire /'resident of India, in exercise of the p0)4,'er conferred by sub rufe (2) of rule II, Cfou.- (b) of :rub rule (2) of rule 14 and sub rule (1) of rule 23 of ti" Cenlrtil Cii1il Seri:ices (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rulrs 1957. The appellant who was working as an investigator in the office of the Chief Controller of Imports and Exports was charged, found guilty and convicted and scnlenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 18 months on each count for an offence under Sections 5(l)(d) and 5(2) of the PreTention of Corruption Act, 1947 and section 161 I.P.C. and a fine of Rs. 200 /- or in c.Jefau1t to undergo further rigorous imprisonment under section 5(2) of the Ac~. His appeal to the High Court was dismissed and the conviction and sentence \Vere confirmed. Special leave was granted by the Supreme Court limited to the question of validity of sanction accorded under section 6 of the Prevent.ion of Corruption Act, 1947. "fhe· appellant died durir1g the pen· dency of the ttppeal and his near relatives were granted permission to continue tbe appeal. Dismissing the appeal, the Court lIELD 1. The preliminary objection of the State as to the abatement of the appeal been-use of the death of the appellant taking i11tu account preparedness to conclude that the sentence might be set aside1 must be ncgatiYcd. [352Dl (a) As per the proviso to section 394(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, where the appeal is against the conviction and sentence of imprisonment and the appe1lant dies during the pendency of the appeal, any of his near relatives may, within the time prescribed therein, apply to the appeJil&te Court before which the appeal is pending for leave to continue the appeal and jf the ]eave is granted the appeal shall not abate. [352A-B] (b) The appellant, in the instant case, has preftrred the appeal against his conviction and sentence of imprisonment and also sentence of fine. After his death his near relatives as contempJlated in the Explanation to sub section (2) of section 394 Crl. P.C., applied to continue the appeal and were granted leave to continue the appeal. Therefore, the near relations of the deceased can continue the appeal Md even if the respoadent State concedes that the sentence of fine be set aside yet the appeal would not aba-te if leave is granted to the near relation of the deceased to continue the appeal. [352C-D] I ....._ ( L. S. SRIVASTAVA V. STATE 349 .. ~ 2. 'Ihe sanction accorded, for prosecution of the appctlMt under section 6 , A -0f the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 by the Joint Chief Controller of Imports and Exports is valid in law: [355H, 356A] (a) The instant case is governed by Central Civil Sen'ices (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1965 and in view of S.R.O. 631 issued by the President, in exercise of the po~·ers conferred by sub rule (2) of rule 11, clause (b) of sub rule (2) of rule 14, and sub rule (2) of rules 23 of the B ,. ) .t Central Civil Services. (Cltissification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1957, which order was sarnl by rule 34 of the 1965 Rules. [353C-D] (b) Ruic 121 l) and (2) of 1965 Rules is in pari 111atuu1 with rul'e 14 of 1957 Rules. Rule 12 of 1965 Rules confers power on the President to impose :1ny of the penalties specified in rule 11 on any Government servant. Sub~ rule (2)(b) provides that any person appointed to a Central Civil Post included in the General Central Service by the Ruthority specified in this behalf by a general or special order of the President or where no such order has been issued, by the appointing authority specified in the Schedule in this behalf, may impose any of the penalties spe ## Text A B c 0 E F ·G :H 348 LAKSHMI SHANKAR SRIVASTAVA v. STATE (DELHI ADMINISTRATION) November 21, 1978 [P. S. KAILASAM, D. A. DESAI AND A. D. KoSHAL, JJ.J A11pea/, abofr n1ent of-An appt•al does not abate on the dtll!/J af tlte occr.1st'd wllen !~are is granted to the near rrlath·e to continue thr appea!--Crimlnal Procedure Code 1973 (Act If of 1974), Section 394(2) r/H-· .'Y!C. 8(3) an.i 9 oj the Criniinal Law A1ne11dme11t Act. Sanction for pro.sccution-Ef]ect of the order issued by S.U.O. 631 by fire /'resident of India, in exercise of the p0)4,'er conferred by sub rufe (2) of rule II, Cfou.- (b) of :rub rule (2) of rule 14 and sub rule (1) of rule 23 of ti" Cenlrtil Cii1il Seri:ices (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rulrs 1957. The appellant who was working as an investigator in the office of the Chief Controller of Imports and Exports was charged, found guilty and convicted and scnlenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 18 months on each count for an offence under Sections 5(l)(d) and 5(2) of the PreTention of Corruption Act, 1947 and section 161 I.P.C. and a fine of Rs. 200 /- or in c.Jefau1t to undergo further rigorous imprisonment under section 5(2) of the Ac~. His appeal to the High Court was dismissed and the conviction and sentence \Vere confirmed. Special leave was granted by the Supreme Court limited to the question of validity of sanction accorded under section 6 of the Prevent.ion of Corruption Act, 1947. "fhe· appellant died durir1g the pen· dency of the ttppeal and his near relatives were granted permission to continue tbe appeal. Dismissing the appeal, the Court lIELD 1. The preliminary objection of the State as to the abatement of the appeal been-use of the death of the appellant taking i11tu account preparedness to conclude that the sentence might be set aside1 must be ncgatiYcd. [352Dl (a) As per the proviso to section 394(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, where the appeal is against the conviction and sentence of imprisonment and the appe1lant dies during the pendency of the appeal, any of his near relatives may, within the time prescribed therein, apply to the appeJil&te Court before which the appeal is pending for leave to continue the appeal and jf the ]eave is granted the appeal shall not abate. [352A-B] (b) The appellant, in the instant case, has preftrred the appeal against his conviction and sentence of imprisonment and also sentence of fine. After his death his near relatives as contempJlated in the Explanation to sub section (2) of section 394 Crl. P.C., applied to continue the appeal and were granted leave to continue the appeal. Therefore, the near relations of the deceased can continue the appeal Md even if the respoadent State concedes that the sentence of fine be set aside yet the appeal would not aba-te if leave is granted to the near relation of the deceased to continue the appeal. [352C-D] I ....._ ( L. S. SRIVASTAVA V. STATE 349 .. ~ 2. 'Ihe sanction accorded, for prosecution of the appctlMt under section 6 , A -0f the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 by the Joint Chief Controller of Imports and Exports is valid in law: [355H, 356A] (a) The instant case is governed by Central Civil Sen'ices (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1965 and in view of S.R.O. 631 issued by the President, in exercise of the po~·ers conferred by sub rule (2) of rule 11, clause (b) of sub rule (2) of rule 14, and sub rule (2) of rules 23 of the B ,. ) .t Central Civil Services. (Cltissification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1957, which order was sarnl by rule 34 of the 1965 Rules. [353C-D] (b) Ruic 121 l) and (2) of 1965 Rules is in pari 111atuu1 with rul'e 14 of 1957 Rules. Rule 12 of 1965 Rules confers power on the President to impose :1ny of the penalties specified in rule 11 on any Government servant. Sub~ rule (2)(b) provides that any person appointed to a Central Civil Post included in the General Central Service by the Ruthority specified in this behalf by a general or special order of the President or where no such order has been issued, by the appointing authority specified in the Schedule in this behalf, may impose any of the penalties specified in rule 11 which includes the penti1ty of removal from service. Therefore, the President has the power to issue any general or spoci~:l oral.er to confer pov.•er to impose penalties ~ specified in rule 11 on any authotity other than the one specified in the Schedule in thi5 behalf. If the order issued by the President, S.R.0. 631 under corresponding n1le 11 and the relevant rules bearing on the subject of 1957 Rules is not shown to be inconsistent with any of the Rules included in 1965 Rule.'1, obviously such order \\:ould be saved under rule 3-t Tuer~ being no inconsistency as contemplated by Rule 34, indisputably the order issued by the President S.R.O. 631 along with the schedule would be savid. Once S.R.0. 631 is saved, the relevant entry in the schedule in respect of the organisation of C.C.I.E. would be saved. Accordingly the entry in the order tss.ued by th.:- President would supplant the corresponding entry in 1965 Rules and would have to be substituted for the entries in the relevant item in the Schedule. The necessary consequence would be that in the case of the organisation o( the C.C.I.E. for all posts in Headquarters Office, Jt. C.C.l.E. would be both the appointing and the disciplinary Guthority having tho power to remove from service such persons belonging to Class III services. Now, the appellant was indisputably holding a post in Class Ill senrice in the Jteadquarters Office of the organisation of C.C.l.E. He was at the relevant time holding the post of Investigator which .,Vis admittedly a Civil Post in Class III service in the office of C.C.I.E. Indisputably, therefore, Jt. C.C.l.E. would be both the appointing and disciplinary authority with power to remove him fron1 service. Therefore, Jt. C.C.I .E. would be cornpctent to accord sonction a·s envi>agcd by s. 6(1)(c) of the Act. [355B-H] The fact that the administrative department in respect of the office of C.C.I.E. is the l\finistry of Foreign Trade & Supply does not make any ditferl'ncc bec::nl">e (.C.l.E. is 2. separate off1"Ce \vith its 0\1,;n establi:;hn10\lt. [354A] R.J. Singh Altluwa/ia v. Stal< of Delhi, A.LR. 1971 S.C. 1552; distinguished. CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. 124 o{ 1972 c ~ '· D E F G H 3 50 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1979] 2 S.C.R. A Appeal by Special Leave from the Judgment and Order dated B c D 24-11-1971 of the Delhi High Court in Criminal Appeal No. 54 0f 1971. C. P. Lal for the Appellant. H. R. Khanna and M. N. Shroff for the Respondent. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by DESAI, J.-The appellant in this appeal by special leave limited to the determination of the question : whether the sanction is valid in law or not, has been convicted for offences under section 5(2) read 'with section 5(1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 ('Act' for short), and section 161 of the Indian Penal Code, and was sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 18 months on each count and a. fine· of Rs. 200/-, in default to ·suffer further regorous imprisonment for a period of two months, for an offence under s. 5(2) of the Act. His appeal being Criminal Appeal No. 54 of 1971 was dismissed by the High Court of Delhi and the conviction and sentence were confirmed. As the leave is limited to the question ·of the validity of sanction accorded under s. 6 of the Act, it is not necessary to set out in detail the prosecution ca·se. Briefly stated, the prosecution case is that the appellant who was employed at the relevant time as Investigator in the E Office of the Chief Controller of Imports & Exports C'C.C.I.E.' for short), accepted from one P.T. Toprani an amount of Rs. 250/- by way of illegal gratification which was not his legal remuneration in presence of witnesses on 18th June 1969 at about 5.30 p.m. near Gujarati Samaj _l Sabha, Delhi. D. S. P. Badri Sharma appeared as soon as the trap / arrangeurt before which the appeal is pending for leave to continue the appeal and if the leave is granted the appeal shall not abate. The appellant has preferred the appeal against his conviction and sentence of imprisonment as also sentence of fine. After his death his near relations · as contemplated in the Explanation to sub-s. (2) of s. 394, Cr. P.C. applied by Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No. 559 of 1978 to continue the appeal and this Court granted substitution of such near· relations by its order dated 28th March 1978 and thereby granted leave to continue the appeal. Therefore, the near relations of the deceased can continue the appeal and even if the respondent State concedes that the sentence of fine be set aside yet the appeal would not abate because the appeal against conviction and sentence of imprisonment would not abate if leave is granted to the near relations of the deceased to continue the appeal. Such leave having been granted, the appeal would not abate. There is thus no merit in the preliminary objection and it must be negatived. Section 6 of the Act which provides for necessity of previous sanction for prosecution for any of the offences under the Act reads as . E under : F G H "6. (1) No court shall take cognizance of all offence punishable under section I 61 (or section I 64) or section 1165· of the Indian Penal Code, or under sub-section (2) or subsection (3A) of section 5 of this Act, alleged to have b-eerr committed by a public servant, except with the previous sanction, (a) in the case of a person who is employed in connection with the affairs of the Union and is not removable from his office save by or with the sanction of the State Govern· ment, of the Central Government. (b) in the case of a person who is employed in connection with the affairs of a State and is not removable from his office save by or with the sanction of the Central Government, of the State Government. (c) in the case of any other person, of the authority competent to remove him from his office. (2) Where for any reason whatsoever any doubt arises whether the previous sanction as required under sub-section ,, ., i L. s. SRIVASTAVA v. STATE (Desai, J.) 3 53 (1) should be given by the Central or State Government or any other authority, such sanction shall be given by that Government or authority which would have been competent to remove the public servant from his office at the time when the offence was alleged to have been committed". Mr. Lal for the appellant contended that as the appellant was an Investigator in the Office of the C.C.l.E. which at best was a Department under the over all control of the Ministry pf Foreign Trade and , Supply, Government of India, the sanction to prosecute him could only be given by the Government of India. In the alternative it was contended that as the C.C.LE. is head of the office, he alone could accord sanction for prosecution as contemplated by $. 6 and, therefore, the sanction accorded by Jt. C.C.LE., an officer subordinate to C.CI.E.. was ab initio void and the Court could not have taken cognizance of the offence. Mr. Khanna for the respondent on the other hand contended that this case wo_uld be governed by Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal Rules, 1965 ('1965 Rules' for short), and in view of S.R.0. 631 issued by the President in exercise of the powers conferred by su,b-rule (2) of rule 11, clause (b) of sub-rule (2) of rule 14, and sub-rule (2) of rule 23 of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1957 ('1957 Rules' for short), which order was saved by rule 34 of the 1965 Rules and, therefore, the Jt. C.C.I.E. was both the appointing and disciplinary authority including the authority competent to remove the appellant from service and was accordingly competent to accord sanction under S· 6(1)(c) of the Act. Rule 11(2) of 1957 Rules provides that all appointments to Central Civil Posts, classes II, III and IV, included in the General Central Service shall be made by the authorities specified in that behalf by a general or special order of the President, or, where no such order has been made, by the authorities specified in the Schedule appended to the Rules. Similarly, rule 14(1) provides that the President may impose any of the penalties including one of removal or dismissal from service as envisaged by rule 13 on any Government servant. Sub-rule (2) of rule 14 provides that without prejudice to the provisions of sub-rule (I), any of the penalties specified in rule 13 may be imposed under sub-clause (b) in respect of person appointed to a Central Civil post included in the General Central Services by the authority specified in this behalf by a general or special order of 1he President or where no such order has been made by the appointing authority or the authority specified in the Schedule in this behalf. The entry at p. 38 provides that the appointing and disciplinary authority in respect of posts in non-Secretariat offices other than posts in respect of which 'specific provision has been made by a general or special order c E F A 8 c 0 F u 354 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1979] 2 S.C.R. of the President, the head of office would be both the appointing and the removing authority. Now, undoubtedly in respect of the office of · the C.C.I.E., the C.C.l.E. would be the head of office. The Otlice of the C.C.I.E. is a non-Secretariat office. May be, the administrative department in respect of this office would be the Ministry of Foreign Trade and Supply.· But C.C.I.E. is a separate otlice with its °'' 11 esiablishment and undoubtedly head of office would be the C.C.l.E. The President in exercise of the power conferred by sub-rule (2) ot rule 11 and clause (b) of sub-rule (2) of rule 14 of the 1957 Rules ha' made a special order as contemplated by rule '11 (2) and rule 14(2) (b) as under : "S.R.O. 631-In exercise of the powers conferred by subrule (2) of rule 11, clause (b) of sub-rule (2) of rule 14 and sub-rule (1) of ruJe 23 of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1957, the President hereby directs that- (!) in respect of the posts in the General Central Sen ice, Class II specified in column 1 of Part I of the Schedule to this order, the authority specified in column 2 shall be the Appointing Authority and the authority specified in. column 3 shall be the Disciplinary Authority in regard to the penalties specified in columl1 4; (2) in respect of the posts in the General Central Service, Class III and the General Central Service, Class IV, specHicd in column 1 of Parts II and III of the said Schedule, the authority specified in column 2 shall be the Appointing Authority and the authorities specified in c9lumns 3 and 5 shall be the Disciplinary Authority and Appellate Authority respectively in regard to the penalties specified in cofomn 4". A comprehensive Schedule is annexed to this order. The rdevant entry is as under l)cscription of Post Appointing authority Organisation of the Chief Controller of Jn1ports and Exporl'i All posts inHcadquarters OJHc·~ 2 Joint Chief Contro1ler of Authority competent to Appellate impose penalties and authority penalties which it may impose (with reference to item numbers in rule J 3) Authority Penalties 3 4 Joint Chief All J mports & Exports. Controller of lmports & Exports. Chief Controller of Imports & Exports ,. L. s. SRIVASTAVA v. STATE (Desai, J.) 355 The entries in the Schedule appended to 1957 Rules will be effective and operative subject of course to any general or special order made by the President in this behalf. It was, however, contended that by rule 34 of 1965 Rules, 1957 Rules were repealed and, therefore, the order issued by the President in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-rule (2) of rule 11 and various other rules bearing on the point would stand repealed and the order of the President would not be effective unless a similar order is issued by the President under the corresponding rule 12 of 1965 Rules. Rule 12(1) and (2) ol' 1965 Rules is in pari materia with rule 14 of 1957 Rules. Rule 12 of 1965 Rules confers power on the President to impose any of the penalties specified in rule 11 on any Government servant. Sub-rule (2) (b) provides that any person appointed to a Central Civil Post included in the General Central Service by the authority specified in this behalf by a general or special order of the President or where no such order has been issued, by the appointing authority specified in the Schedule in this behalf, may impose any of the penalties specified in rule 11 which includes , the penalty or removal from service. Therefore, the President has the power to issue any general or special order to confer power to impose penalties as specified in rule 11 on any authority other than the one specified in the Schedule in this behalf. Now, if the order issued by the President, S.R.O. 631 under corresponding rule 1 l and the relevant rules bearing on the subject of 1957 Rules is not shown to be inconsistent with any of the Rules included in 1965 Rules. obviously such order would be saved under rule 34. No inconsistency was shown to us as contemplated by rule 34. Therefore, indisputably the order issued by the President, S.R.0. 631 along with the Schedule would be saved. Once S.R.O. ·631 is saved, the relevant entry hercinabove quoted in respect of the organisation of C.C.I.E. would be saved. Accordingly the entry in the order issued by the President would supplant the corresponding entry in 1965 Rules and would have to be substituted for the entries in the relevant item in the Schedule. The necessary consequence would be B c D E F that in the case of the organisation of the C.C.I.E. for all posts in Headquarters Office, Jt. C.C.T.E. would be both the appointing and the disciplinary authority having the power to remove from service such persons belonging to Class III services. Now, the appellant was indisG putably holding a post in Class 111 service in the Headquarters Office of the organisation of C.C.l.E. He was at the relevant time holding the post of Investigator which was admittedly a Civil post in Class Ill service in the office of C.C.I.E. Indisputably, therefore, Jt. C.C.I.E would be both the appointing and disciplinary authority with power to H remove him from service. Therefore, Jt. C.C.l.E. would be competent .to accord sanctioo as envisaged by s, 6(1) (c) of the Act. Sanction A B c I. n S56 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1979) 2 S.C.R .. in this case having been granted by the Jt. C.C.I.E., it was valid. There· is thus no substance in the contention of Mr. Lal. Mr. Lal in this connection drew our attention to a decision in R. J. Singh Ahluwalia v. The State of Delhi(') The appellant in that case was at the relevant time working as Assistant in Co-ordination III of D.G.T.D. at Udyog Bhavan, New Delhi. His contention was that sanction accorded by Shri K. Rajaram, Deputy Secretary to Government of India in the Ministry of Industrial Development and Company Affairs (Department of Industrial Development) was not valid and that he · could only have been prosecuted under a sanction that may be accorded• by thB Home Ministry. In respect of this contention it was conceded< on behalf of the State that in the absence of such sanction the prosecution must fail. The judgment proceeds on concession and not on any analysis or examination of the relevant provisions. Thcrel"ore, it in no way helps the appellant in this case. This being the only point that could be raised in this appeal by limited leave and snch contention being without merit, the appeal fails and is dismissed. As the appellant is dead there is no question of his surrendering to Bail. S.R. Appeal dismissed_ \1) A.l.R. 1971 S.C. 1552. ••