# lndu Bhusa11 Chatterjee v. The State of West Bengal

- **Citation:** [1958] 1 S.C.R. 1001
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1958
- **Case number:** Criminal Appeal No. 18 of 1955
- **Bench:** B. P. Sinha, Jafer Imam, J. L. Kapur
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/lndu-bhusa11-chatterjee-v-the-state-of-west-bengal-1387
- **Pages:** 9

## Headnote

Pu.bLic servant-Prosecution-Sanction-Essentials of a
valid sanction-Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 (2 of
1947), ss. 5 (2), 6-Indian Penal Code (Act 45 of 1860),
s. 161.
The appellant, a public servant, was convicted under
s. 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1917, and under
s. 161 of the Indian Penal Code on a charge of accepting
a sum of Rs. 100 as illegal gratification. It was contended
for the appellant that the conviction was bad on the ground
that the sanction for his prosecution was not valid because
the officer competent to sanction the prosecution (1) had
not applied his mind to the facts and circumstances of the
case but merely perused the draft prepared by the Police
and (2) did not investigate the truth of the offence. The
evidence, however, showed that he went through all ihe
papers placed before him which gave him the necessary
material upon which he decided that it was necessary in
the ends of justice to accord his sanction ~
Held, that the essentials of a valid sanction were present
in the case and that the conviction was valid.
Goku.lchand Dwarkadas Morarka v. The King, (1948)
L.R. 75 I.A. 30, referred to.
CRIMINAL
APPELLATE
JURISDICTION:
Criminal
Appeal No. 18 of 1955.
Appeal from the judgment and order dated December 1, 1954, of the Calcutta High Court in 'Criminal
Appeal No. 322 of 1953, arising out of the judgment
L!Sup. Court/61-8
Das C.J.
1957.
November, 26.
1957
lndu Bhusa11
Chatterjee
v.
.The State of
West Bengal
flnam J.
1002
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1958J
and order dated November 20, 1953, of the West.
Bengal First Special Court at Alipore in Case No. 3
of 1953.
N. C. Chatterjee and D. N. Mukherjee, for the
appellant.
B. Sen arid P. K. Ghosh (for f'. K. Bose), for the
respondent.
1957. November 26. The following Judgment of
the Court was delivered by
IMAM J.-The High Court of Calcutta certified
under Art. 134(l)(c) of the Constitution that the case·
before us was a fit one for appeal to this Court. The
ground for the granting of the certificate, as stated by
the High Court, will be considered in due course.
The appellant was convicted under s. 5(2) of the
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 (II of 1947), hereinafter referred to as the Act, and under s. 161 of the
Indian Penal Code by a Special Judge who sentenced
him under s. 161 to undergo rigorous imprisonment
for three months and to pay a fine of Rs. 50'J in default to suffer further rigorous imprisonment for one
month. No separate sentence was passed under s.
5(2) of the Act. He unsuccessfully appealed to the
High Court against his conviction and sentence.
The charge framed against the appellant under
s. 161 of the Indian Penal Code, in substance, stated.
that on or about May 12, 1952, he had accepted Rs,
100 as illegal gratification from V. S. Doraiswamy as a:
motive or reward for doing an official act and show•
ing in the exercise of his official functions favour toDoraiswamy in seeing that a speedy and favourable
settlement of the claim cases preferred by him against
the Bengal Nagpur Railway, subsequently the Eastern
Railway. The charge under s. 5(2) of the Act which
related to the same transaction stated that the appellant had accepted the aforesaid sum of Rs. 100 by
corrupt or illegal means or by otherwise abusing his
position as a public servant.
It is unnecessary to set out in any great detail the
story of the prosecution as to how Doraiswamy and
the appellant came into contact and how the process;
S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
1003
of giving bribe to the appellant began. They met in
1950. Rs. 10 was paid to the appellant in October,
1951; and Rs. 15 in January, 1952, as the result of the
appellant asking Doraiswamy for some gratification
for speedy and favourable disposal of his claim cases.
The appellant was at that time Assistant Supervisor
of Claim Cases of the Bengal Nagpur Railway of the
Vizianagram Section. On some secret information,
the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Special Police
Establishment at Puri directed Inspect

## Text

S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
1001
the Act, it is not necessary for us to go into the other
1957
points raised in the petition. We, therefore, direct Choudhury Dharam
that a writ be issued as prayed for and the petitioner
Singh Rathi
be set at liberty forthwith.
v.
The State of
Punjab
Wrjt issued.
Petitioner set at Hberty.
INDU BHUSAN ·CHATTERJEE
'V.
THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL
(B. P. SINHA, JAFER IMAM and J. L. KAPUR JJ.)
Pu.bLic servant-Prosecution-Sanction-Essentials of a
valid sanction-Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 (2 of
1947), ss. 5 (2), 6-Indian Penal Code (Act 45 of 1860),
s. 161.
The appellant, a public servant, was convicted under
s. 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1917, and under
s. 161 of the Indian Penal Code on a charge of accepting
a sum of Rs. 100 as illegal gratification. It was contended
for the appellant that the conviction was bad on the ground
that the sanction for his prosecution was not valid because
the officer competent to sanction the prosecution (1) had
not applied his mind to the facts and circumstances of the
case but merely perused the draft prepared by the Police
and (2) did not investigate the truth of the offence. The
evidence, however, showed that he went through all ihe
papers placed before him which gave him the necessary
material upon which he decided that it was necessary in
the ends of justice to accord his sanction ~
Held, that the essentials of a valid sanction were present
in the case and that the conviction was valid.
Goku.lchand Dwarkadas Morarka v. The King, (1948)
L.R. 75 I.A. 30, referred to.
CRIMINAL
APPELLATE
JURISDICTION:
Criminal
Appeal No. 18 of 1955.
Appeal from the judgment and order dated December 1, 1954, of the Calcutta High Court in 'Criminal
Appeal No. 322 of 1953, arising out of the judgment
L!Sup. Court/61-8
Das C.J.
1957.
November, 26.
1957
lndu Bhusa11
Chatterjee
v.
.The State of
West Bengal
flnam J.
1002
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1958J
and order dated November 20, 1953, of the West.
Bengal First Special Court at Alipore in Case No. 3
of 1953.
N. C. Chatterjee and D. N. Mukherjee, for the
appellant.
B. Sen arid P. K. Ghosh (for f'. K. Bose), for the
respondent.
1957. November 26. The following Judgment of
the Court was delivered by
IMAM J.-The High Court of Calcutta certified
under Art. 134(l)(c) of the Constitution that the case·
before us was a fit one for appeal to this Court. The
ground for the granting of the certificate, as stated by
the High Court, will be considered in due course.
The appellant was convicted under s. 5(2) of the
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 (II of 1947), hereinafter referred to as the Act, and under s. 161 of the
Indian Penal Code by a Special Judge who sentenced
him under s. 161 to undergo rigorous imprisonment
for three months and to pay a fine of Rs. 50'J in default to suffer further rigorous imprisonment for one
month. No separate sentence was passed under s.
5(2) of the Act. He unsuccessfully appealed to the
High Court against his conviction and sentence.
The charge framed against the appellant under
s. 161 of the Indian Penal Code, in substance, stated.
that on or about May 12, 1952, he had accepted Rs,
100 as illegal gratification from V. S. Doraiswamy as a:
motive or reward for doing an official act and show•
ing in the exercise of his official functions favour toDoraiswamy in seeing that a speedy and favourable
settlement of the claim cases preferred by him against
the Bengal Nagpur Railway, subsequently the Eastern
Railway. The charge under s. 5(2) of the Act which
related to the same transaction stated that the appellant had accepted the aforesaid sum of Rs. 100 by
corrupt or illegal means or by otherwise abusing his
position as a public servant.
It is unnecessary to set out in any great detail the
story of the prosecution as to how Doraiswamy and
the appellant came into contact and how the process;
S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
1003
of giving bribe to the appellant began. They met in
1950. Rs. 10 was paid to the appellant in October,
1951; and Rs. 15 in January, 1952, as the result of the
appellant asking Doraiswamy for some gratification
for speedy and favourable disposal of his claim cases.
The appellant was at that time Assistant Supervisor
of Claim Cases of the Bengal Nagpur Railway of the
Vizianagram Section. On some secret information,
the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Special Police
Establishment at Puri directed Inspector G. N. Brahma
to contact Doraiswamy in connection with ·a report of
alleged dishonesty by railway officials. Brahma met
Doraiswamy and asked him to meet him again at
Calcutta on May 10, 1952, after the latter had filed a
complaint along with some letters said to have been
written by the appellant. Permission was obtained
from the Chief Presidency Magistrate, Calcutta to
investig~te the case. Thereafter Doraisw~my met the
appellant in Calcutta and it was settled that· the former would pay the latter Rs. 100 on May 12, 1952,
at 6 p.m. at the India Coffee Housi!. Doraiswamy informed the police of the arrangement. Marked tenrupee·currency notes were given to Doraiswamy. The
appellant and DoraiswaJlly met at the India Coffee
House as arranged. There was a talk betwe.en them
about expediting the claim cases which were being
dealt with by the appellant and a list of them was
given to him. This list and the bundle of marked
currency notes which DoraisW!lffiY gave him were put
in the left upper pocket of his shirt by the appellant.
The Inspectors H.K. Mukherjee and S. B. Mitra along
with G. N. Gosh, an Assistant Director of Postal Services and Brahma came up to the appellant. He was
accused by the police of having received 10 ten-:rupee
currency notes as bribe from Dorai!IWamy . and was
asked to produce them. After some hesitation the
appellant 'produced the currency notes as well as ·the
list given to him by Doraiswamy. The number of the
currency notes were checked and found to tally with
the previciusly noted numbers. of the currency notes
given to Doraiswamy for ha~ding them over to the
1!>S7
lndu Bhusan
Chatterjee
v.
The State of .
West Bengal
Imam I.
1957
<·1tlu Bhusa11
Chatterjee
v.
The State of'
IVest Be11gal
J111an1 J.
1004
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1958]
appellant. The case of the prosecution was found to
have been proved by both the courts below and the
appellant was convicted and sentenced as stated above
It may be stated at the outset that the concurrent
findings of fact arrived at by the courts below were
not questioned before us. The only question canvassed before us was whether there had been a valid sanction given under s. 6 of the Act without which no
court could take cognizance of the offences alleged to
have been committed by the appellant.
In order to. appreciate the submission made by
Mr. Chatterjee in this connection, a few facts have to
be stated and some reference to the evidence of Mr.
Bokil, P. W. 5, Chief Commercial Superintendent of
the Eastern Railway at Calcutta will be necessary.
The appellant as Assistant Supervisor of Claim
Cases of the then Bengal Nagpur Railway (later the
Eastern Railway) had the power to deal fin"ally with
claims up to Rs. 75 and for claims in excess of that
sum to make a recommendation to his superior officer,_
the Assistant Commercial Superintendent. Doraiswamy was working on behalf of several persons who
had made claims against the Railway. These cases
were numerous. All these cases had to be dealt with
by the appellant either by passing final orders himself,
if the value in each case was Rs. 75 or less, or by recommending to his superior officer the cases where the
value of the claim, in each case, was more than Rs. 75.
The appellant, therefore, being incharge of all the
claim cases played an important part in their disposal
€ither by passing final orders himself or by making
recommendations. When the appellant was paid
Rs. 100 at the India Coffee House on May 12, 1952,
he was found in possession of the marked currency
notes and the list of cases, in which claims had been
made, which had been given to him by Doraiswamy.
Sanction for the prosecution of the appellant was
sought from the Chief Commercial Superintendent
Mr. Bokil, P.W.5. There is no dispute that Mr. Bokil
was competent to grant the sanction. He had stated
in his evidence that before according to sanction he
S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
1005
went through all the relevant papers and was satisfied
that in the interests of justice the appellant should be
prosecuted. He,· accordingly, gave the sanction in
writing and this document was marked as Ex. 6.
Exhibit 6 clearly states that the appellant had demanded on May 12, 1952, as bribe the sum of Rs. 100 from
Doraiswamy and had accepted the sum as a motive
or reward for speedy and favourable settlement of the
claim cases, that Mr. Bokil had applied his mind tO
the facts and the circumstances of the case and was
satisfied that in the interests of justice, the appellant
should be put on his trial in a Court of competent
jurisdiction for offences under s. 161 of the Indian
Penal Code ands. 5(2) of the Act alleged to have been
committed by him. He, accordingly, under the provisions of s. 6 of the Act, accorded his sanction that the
appellant be prosecuted in a competent court of law
for the offence of having accepted illegal gratification
as a motive or reward for showing favour to Doraiswamy in respect of the claim cases filed against the
Vizianagram Section of the Railway.
Exhibit 6 on the face of it and the evidence of Mr.
Bokil in examination-in-chief clearly establish that a
valid sanction had been accorded by Mr. Bokil. It was,
however, urged before the Special Judge, as it was
urged in the High Court, that certain statements made
by Mr. Bokil in cross-examination clearly showed that
he had not applied his mind to the facts and circum- ·
stances of the case and the sanction accorded by him
was not a valid one. The Special Judge rejected this
contention and was satisfied that Ex. 6 on the face of
it disclosed a valid sanction for the prosecution of the
appellant. The learned Judges of the High Court who
heard the appeal were also satisfied that Mr. Bokil
had, in fact, applied his mind to the facts and circumstances of the case. Regarding the statements made
by Mr. Bokil in cross-examination they were of the
opinion that they did not show that he did not apply
his mind to the facts of the case. These statements
merely showed that he did not investigate the truth of
the case presented against the appellant.
An
1957
/11du Bhusat.
Chatterjee
v.
'
The State of
West Be11gai
Imam J.
1957
lndu Bhusan
Chatt~rjee
v.
The State of
West &,.,al
Imam I.
1006
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1958]
application was filed in the High Court under Art. 134
of the Constitution for the granting of a certificate that
the case was a fit one for appeal to this Court. The
order granting the certificate shows that the learned
Judges who heard the application were of the opinion
that the sanction accorded in this case was not a valid
sanction. The learned Judges were of the opinion
that the question whether or not there was a proper
sanction in the case was a question serious enough to
justify the granting of a certificate.
It is necessary therefore to decide whether the sanction accorded in this case was a valid sanction. The
substance of the sanction has already been stated but
in order that there may be no misunderstanding we
quote the very words of the sanction itself :
"Whereas a complaint was made against Shri Indu
Bhusan Chatterjee, Assistant Supervisor, Claims, of
the B. N. Railway (now Eastern Railway) Garden
Reach, Calcutta, who looked after the claims cases
against the Railway of the Vizianagram Section, that
the said Indu Bhusan ·Chatterjee had demanded and
on 12th May, 1952, accepted a bribe of Rs.
100
(Rupees one hundred only) from Shri V. S. Doraiswamy of the Commercial Claims Bureau, Vizianagram as a motive or reward for speedy and favourable
settlement of the claims cases of the Commercial
Claims Bureau and thereby having committed an
offence punishable under Section 161 I.P.C. and also
the offence of criminal misconduct by the illegal and
corrupt use of his official position as a public servant
to obtain a pecuniary advantage for himself punishable under Section 5(2) read with Section 5(1),.
clause (d) of the Prevention of Gorruption Act II of
1947, I, R. K. Bokil, Chief Commercial Superintendent,
Eastern Railway, Calcutta, having applied my mind to
the facts and circumstances of the case, am satisfied,
and am of the opinion that in the interests of justice,
Shri Indu Bhusan Chatterjee, Assistant Supervisor,
Claims, Eastern Railway, Garden Reach, Calcutta, be
put on his trial in a Court of competent jurisdiction
for the offences alleged against him. That as Shri
S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
1007
Indu Bhusan Chatterjee, Assistant Supervisor, Claims,
Eastern Railway, Garden Reach, Calcutta, is removable from his office by me; I therefore by virtue of the
powers vested in me by Section 6 ( c) of the Prevention of Corruption Act II of 1947, do hereby accord
sanction that Shri Indu Bhusan Chatterjee be prosecuted in a competent Court of law for the offence of
having accepted an illegal gratification as a motive or
reward for showing favour to Shri V. S. Doraiswamy,
in his official functions viz., the settlement of,the cases
of the Vizianagram Section of Eastern "Railway,
punishable under Section 161 I.P.C. and for the offence
of criminal misconduct for the corrupt and illegal use
of his official position to obtain a pecuniary advantage
for himself punishable under Section 5(2) of the Pre-
. vention of Corruption Act (Act II of 1947)."
In our opinion, this sanction clearly states all the facts
which concern the prosecution case alleged against the
appellant with reference to his acceptance of Rs.
100 from Doraiswamy on May 12, 1952, in circumstances which, if established, would constitute offences
under s. 161, Indian Penal Code ands. 5(2)- of the Act.
The sanction also clearly states that Mr. Bokil had
applied his mind and was of the opinion that in the
interests of justice the appellant should be prosecuted.
The charge framed against the appellant at his trial
was with reference to this very incident and none
other. What more facts were required to be stated in
the sanction itself we are unable to understand. Mr.
Bokil in his examination-in-chief stated "On the prayer
of the police, I accorded sanction to the prosecution
of one Shri I. B. Chatterjee who was the Assistant
Supervisor of Claims. Before according sanction I
went through all relevant papers and was satisfied
that in the interest of justice, Shri I. B. Chatterjee
should be prosecuted. This is the sanction marked
Ex. 6". In cross-examination, however, he made the
following statement : "This sanction Ex. 6 was prepared by the police and it was put before me by the
personnel branch of my office. I did not call for any
record in connection with this matter from my office.
1955
lndu Bl111sa11
Chatterjee
v.
The State of
West Bengal
Imam J.
1957
Indu Bhusan
Chatterjee
v.
The State of
West Bengal
Imam J.
1008
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1958)
I did not call for the connected claim cases nor did I
enquire about the position of those claim cases." The
learned Judges in granting the certificate, apparently,
were impressed by the statement of Mr. Bokil that
Ex. 6 was prepared by the police and put before him
by the personnel branch of his office, because the
learned Chief Justice observed, "I can hardly imagine
the duty of granting the proper sanction being properly discharged by merely putting one's signature
on a ready-made sanction presented by the police." It
seems to- us that Mr. Bokil's statement does not prove
that he merely put his signature on a ready-made sanction presented by the police. It is true that he did
not himself dictate or draft the sanction, but Mr.
Bokil has stated in the clearest terms, in his examination-in-chief, that before he accorded sanction he went
through all the relevant papers. There is no reason
to distrust this statement of Mr. Bokil, nor has the
High Court, while granting the certificate of fitness,
done so. He was an officer of high rank in the Railway and must have been fully aware that the responsibility of according the sanction against an official
of the Railway subordinate to him lay upon him. It
is inconceivable that an officer of the rank of Mr. BokiI
would blindly sign a ready-made sanction prepared by
the police. Apparently, the sanction already drafted
contained all the material facts upon which the prosecution was to be launched, if at all, concerning the
acceptance of the bribe by the appellant on May 12',
1952. When Ex. 6 was placed before Mr. Bokil other
relevant papers were also placed before him. It is
significant that Mr. Bokil was not cross-examined as
to what the other relevant papers were and in the
absence of any question being put to Mr. Bokil we
must accept his statement that the papers placed before him were relevant to the only question before
him whether he should or should not accord his sanction to the prosecution of the appellant. Mr. BokiI
said, and we see no reason to distrust his statement, that before he accorded his sanction he went
through all these papers and after being satisfied that
S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
1009
sanction should be given he accorded his sanction. It
is true that he did not call for any record in connection with the matter from his office nor did he call for
the connected claim cases or find out as to how they
stood. It was not for Mr. Bokil to judge the truth of
the allegations made against the appellant by calling
for the records of the connected claim cases or other
records in connection with the matter from his office.
The papers which were placed before him apparently
gave him the necessary material upon which he decided that it was necessary in the ends of justice to
accord his sanction.
Reliance was placed on the case of Gokulchand
Dwarkadas Morarka v. The King( 1 ) and other cases,
to which it is unnecessary to refer, in support of the
submission on behalf of the appellant that the sanction
accorded was not a valid sanction. A careful reading,
however, of Morarka's case( 1 ) satisfies us that the
sanction accorded in this case in no way conflicts with
the observations of their Lordships of the Judicial
Committee. On the contrary, in our opinion, it is in
keeping with them. None of the other cases cited by
the learned Counsel for the appellant assist us in the
matter. When the sanction itself and the evidence of
Mr. Bokil are carefully scrutinized and read togetherthere can be little doubt that the sanction accorded
was a valid sanction. The only point which had been
argued before us and which was the expressed reason
. for the granting of the certificate having failed, the
appeal must be dismissed and the decision of the High
Court in upholding the conviction and sentence of the
appellant must be upheld.
Appeal dismissed.
(l) (1948) L.R. 75 I.A. 30.
1957
lndu Bhusan
Chatterjee
v.
Tlw State of
West Bengal
Imam J.