# PARMANAND DASS v. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

- **Citation:** [1979] 1 S.C.R. 792
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1978-09-15
- **Bench:** Jaswant Singh, P. S. Ka!Lasam
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/parmanand-dass-v-state-of-andhra-pradesh-7536
- **Pages:** 5

## Headnote

Sanctioning authority for the purposes of Section 6 of the Preve11Jion of
Corruption Act under the Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955 as
aniended by Act II of 1970-Whether subsequent sancrion is invalid since an
I
earlier sanction was held to be invalid.
The prosecution of the appellant, who '"as charged for having received an
illegal gratification was held to be bad by the Special Judge, since the sanction
for the prosecution under Section 6 of the Prevention of Corruption Act was
granted by the Commissioner instead of the Standing Committee of the Hyderabad Municipality. He was, therefore, reinstated in service and when the Commissioner wrote again for the sanction, the Standing Committee recorded on
17-6-70 to drop the case on the ground that it was an old case and the
appellant had already been reinstated in service.
The Hyderabad Municipal Corporation (Amendment) Act II of 1970 came
into force on 27-6-70, under which a provision was made for the appointment
of a special officer to exercise the powers, to perform the duties and discharge
the functions of (a) the Corporation (b) the Standing Committee and ( c) the
Commission under the Act. This provision was to be in force for a period
of two years with effect from 3-8-70 with a further provision that it shall not
be extended beyond 31-10-75.
After Act II of 1970 came into force, on 29-7-72 a memor&11dum was submitted in the nature of a note to the Standing Committee to take a fresh
decision on the issue of prosecution of the appellant and for granting sanction
to prosecute the appellant.
On 15-5-73, the Standing Committee by its resolution authorised the special officer to sign the sanction order and to send it to
Anti-Corruption Bureau, Hyderabad. In pursuance of the resolufion, a sanction
order was passed on 16-6-73.
On 29-11-73 the appellant was placed under
suspension and on l 1-12-75, the special judge dismissed the. petitioner~s objections
to the validity of th.!. sanction. The appellant filed the appeal by special leaver
as the High Court dismissed his criminal revision petition.
G
Allowing the appea.l, the Court
H
HELD : 1. There can be no legal bar to the sanctioning authority revising
its opinion before the sanction order is placed before the Court.
The validity
of the sanction can only be considered at the time when it is filed before the
Special Judge. SUbsequent sanction having been given, in the present case, by
the competent authority, the plea that the Stoo.ding Committee again considered
the question but decided to drop the proceedings on the ground that it was an
old case .and the appellant had already been reinstated in service cannot be
accepted. [794D·F]
'
' .
...
..
.,
"-/
•
•
·-··/
/.'
I
.
P. DASS v. A. P. STATE (Kailasam, I.)
793
. . -~---. - ~--·--·
2. :The validity of thC sa~ction cannot be upheld, as the speCiat ~ffi.cer who
A
is entitleJ. under the Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955 as amended
by Act II of 1970, has not given the sanction as a special officer or by himselt
exerci~ing the po\1.'ers of the Standing Committee. but issued the sanction order
. in pursU<Ulce of the sanction given by the Standing Committee by its resoIU.tiPn
dt 15-5-1973.
[796C-D]
.
-
CRllllNAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Crimi'nal Appeal No .. 482
n
of 1976.
Appeal by Special Leave from the Judgment ·dated 20-1-1976 of
the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Criminal Revision Case No. 18 of
1976.
R. V. Pillai am! H. K. Puri for !he Appellant.
P. Parmeshwara Rao and G. N. Rao for the Respondent.
The Judgment of th~ Court was delivered by ·c-·-
KAILASAM, J. This appeal is by sp~cial leave against tbe judgment
c
of Andhra Pradesh High Court, in Criminal Revision No. 18 of 1976
D
holding tbat tbe sanction order given for prosecuting the appellant is
va~id and dismissing his Revision Petition.
The appellant Parmanand Dass, was appointed as
a clerk in
Hyderabad Municipal Corporation on 15-1-1951 in the scale of
Rs. 40-50 and was promoted to the scale of Rs. 50-105 on 1

## Text

A
B
c
D
E
F
792
PARMANAND DASS
v.
STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH
September 15, 1978
[JASWANT SINGH AND P. S. KA!LASAM, JJ.]
Sanctioning authority for the purposes of Section 6 of the Preve11Jion of
Corruption Act under the Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955 as
aniended by Act II of 1970-Whether subsequent sancrion is invalid since an
I
earlier sanction was held to be invalid.
The prosecution of the appellant, who '"as charged for having received an
illegal gratification was held to be bad by the Special Judge, since the sanction
for the prosecution under Section 6 of the Prevention of Corruption Act was
granted by the Commissioner instead of the Standing Committee of the Hyderabad Municipality. He was, therefore, reinstated in service and when the Commissioner wrote again for the sanction, the Standing Committee recorded on
17-6-70 to drop the case on the ground that it was an old case and the
appellant had already been reinstated in service.
The Hyderabad Municipal Corporation (Amendment) Act II of 1970 came
into force on 27-6-70, under which a provision was made for the appointment
of a special officer to exercise the powers, to perform the duties and discharge
the functions of (a) the Corporation (b) the Standing Committee and ( c) the
Commission under the Act. This provision was to be in force for a period
of two years with effect from 3-8-70 with a further provision that it shall not
be extended beyond 31-10-75.
After Act II of 1970 came into force, on 29-7-72 a memor&11dum was submitted in the nature of a note to the Standing Committee to take a fresh
decision on the issue of prosecution of the appellant and for granting sanction
to prosecute the appellant.
On 15-5-73, the Standing Committee by its resolution authorised the special officer to sign the sanction order and to send it to
Anti-Corruption Bureau, Hyderabad. In pursuance of the resolufion, a sanction
order was passed on 16-6-73.
On 29-11-73 the appellant was placed under
suspension and on l 1-12-75, the special judge dismissed the. petitioner~s objections
to the validity of th.!. sanction. The appellant filed the appeal by special leaver
as the High Court dismissed his criminal revision petition.
G
Allowing the appea.l, the Court
H
HELD : 1. There can be no legal bar to the sanctioning authority revising
its opinion before the sanction order is placed before the Court.
The validity
of the sanction can only be considered at the time when it is filed before the
Special Judge. SUbsequent sanction having been given, in the present case, by
the competent authority, the plea that the Stoo.ding Committee again considered
the question but decided to drop the proceedings on the ground that it was an
old case .and the appellant had already been reinstated in service cannot be
accepted. [794D·F]
'
' .
...
..
.,
"-/
•
•
·-··/
/.'
I
.
P. DASS v. A. P. STATE (Kailasam, I.)
793
. . -~---. - ~--·--·
2. :The validity of thC sa~ction cannot be upheld, as the speCiat ~ffi.cer who
A
is entitleJ. under the Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955 as amended
by Act II of 1970, has not given the sanction as a special officer or by himselt
exerci~ing the po\1.'ers of the Standing Committee. but issued the sanction order
. in pursU<Ulce of the sanction given by the Standing Committee by its resoIU.tiPn
dt 15-5-1973.
[796C-D]
.
-
CRllllNAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Crimi'nal Appeal No .. 482
n
of 1976.
Appeal by Special Leave from the Judgment ·dated 20-1-1976 of
the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Criminal Revision Case No. 18 of
1976.
R. V. Pillai am! H. K. Puri for !he Appellant.
P. Parmeshwara Rao and G. N. Rao for the Respondent.
The Judgment of th~ Court was delivered by ·c-·-
KAILASAM, J. This appeal is by sp~cial leave against tbe judgment
c
of Andhra Pradesh High Court, in Criminal Revision No. 18 of 1976
D
holding tbat tbe sanction order given for prosecuting the appellant is
va~id and dismissing his Revision Petition.
The appellant Parmanand Dass, was appointed as
a clerk in
Hyderabad Municipal Corporation on 15-1-1951 in the scale of
Rs. 40-50 and was promoted to the scale of Rs. 50-105 on 1-9-1956.
A charge of having received an illegal gratificatio·n of Rs. 15 /- was
brought ag;inst him and .he was. suspended on 22-9-1966.
On
27-5-1967, _the Commissioner of tbe Municipal Corporation ghve sa'nction for prosecution under section 6 of the Prevention of Corruption
Act. The appellant questioned the validity of the sanction on the ground
that the Commissioner was not the competent authority to grant the
san•tion. The Special Judge accepted tbe contention and found that the
Standi·ag Committee of the Municipality alone can giv•o sanction ahd
as_ the Commissioner had no po\vers, the Sanction \Vas not valid. Soon -
after on 4-5-1970, the appellant prayed for his reinstatement, and on
12-6-1970, the appellant was reinstated.
The Commisisoncr on
17-6-1970 again wrote_ to the Standing Committee seeking for a fresh
sanctionOn 27-6, 1979, the Stand:ng Committee resclved to drop tho
case oa the ground that it was an old case and that the appellant had
already been reinstated in service.
On 27-6-1970, Act II of 1970 came into force. The Act provided
that the ;pecial officer appoihted under the Act will eio~rcise the powers
of the Standi:ag Committee of the Municipal Corporation. After tbe
Act came into force on 29-7-1972 a memorandum in the nature of a
E
F
G
' ,.
A.
B
c
D
E
F
G
•
-.
79.j
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1979] 1 s.c.R.
note to the Standing Committee was prepared requesting the Standing
Committee to take fresh decision on_ the issue of prosecution of the
appellant, ahd for granting saTiction to prosecute the appellant On
15-5-1973, the Standing Committee by its resolution authorised the
Special Officer to sign the sanction order and to send it to the Anticorruption _Bureau, Hyderabad. In pursuance of the resolution,
a
sanction order was passed ro 16-6-1973. On 29-11-1973, the appellant was placed under suspension. On 11-12-1975, the Special Judge
dismissed the petitioner's objection to the validity of the sanction.· The
appellant filed Criminal Revision No. 18 of 1976 before the High
Court against the order of Special Judge and the High Court dismissed
the Revision Petition on 20-1-1976, a.,d this appeal by special leave is
against that order.
It _was submitted that having once declined to_ grant_ sanction, a
subsequent Standing Committee cannot grant sanction on the same
facts. It was crotended that ,the grant of sanction by the Special Officer
was not boiia fide and was due to ulterior motive. -We do not see any
merit in any of these submissions. Sanction given by the Commissioner
was rightly rejected by the Special Judge on the ground that the Commissioner was not competent to grant the sanctiro. This could not
prevent a -subsequent sahction being given by the Competent Authority, but the plea of the learned cmmsel was that the Standing Committee again considered the question but decided to drop the proceedi-::igs on the ground that it was an o!d case and the accused had already
been reinstated in service. There could be no objection to the Stahding Committee again reconsidering its decision. The validity of the
sanction can only be considered at the time when it is filed before the
Special Judge. We find that there could be no legal bar to the 5a:ictio"ning authority revising its own opinion befort< the. sanction order is
placed before the Court
On a consideration of the record ~hich ultimately resulted in the
order of the sanction, we find however that the sanction order ca:inot
be held to be in accordance with the law. It was on 27-6-1970, the
Standing Committee resolved to drop further proceedings. - On the
same day, Act II of 1970 came into force.
Under section 2 of the
Hyderabad Municipal Corporations (Amendment) Act, 1970, which
came into force on 27th June 1970, it was provided that notwith~tand
ing anything contained in the Hyckrabad Municipal Corporation Act,
1955, there shall be appointed by the State Goverhment, by notification in the Andhra Pradesh Gazette; a Special Officer to exercise the
powers, to perform the duties and discharge the functions of-
( a) the Corporation;
.. -.- ,,-
...
t
'
.
•
•
•
..
·-'
•
P. DASS v. A. P. STATE (Kailasam, !.)
(b) the Standing Committee; and
( c) ~ Commissioner.
795
--~---
This provision was to be in force for a period of two years with effect
from 3rd August, 1970, ·with a provision that it shall not be extended
beyond 31st October, 1975. It is not disputed before us that the
Amelldment Act was not extended to cover the period in question.
After the. introduction of the amending Act, a Special Officer was
appointed by the State Government by notification in the Andhra
Pradesh Gazette. The Sp,cial Officer was to exercise the powers and
perform the duties and discharge the functions of the Standing Committee. After the date of coming into force of the Amellding Act, tire
Special Officer can himself give sanction as he is empowered to discharge the functions of th., Standing Committee. What happened
b
this case was tliat on 29-7-1972 a note was prepared and submitted
to the Standing Committee which is
~igned by- one M. Narsing
Rao, for Special Officer.
The note requested the Standing Committee to take a fresh decision on the issue for prosecuting Shri
Parmanand Dass for accepting illegal gratification under .Section
6( 1) (c) of the Prevention of Corruption j\ct 1947.
The Standing Committee on 15·5-1973, after stating that the Standing Committee of the Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad is the authority
to remove Parmanand Dass from his office and that after fully
considering and examining the materials placed before it, it was
of the view that the appellant should be prosecuted in a court of
law for the said offence, accorded sanction under .section 6(1) (c) of
the Prevention of Corruption Act · 194 7. A draft sanction order was
·signed by the Special Officer, Municipal Corporatioll of Hyderabad
with a note that he is the officer authorii;.,d by the Standing Committee
of the Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad to sign the sanction order.
After the coming into force of Act IT of 1970, the Special Officer is
entitled to exerci>e powers, perform the duties and dii;.charge the function• of the Standing Committee. If the Special Officer acting as the
St'1llding Committee had given the sanction there would have •been no
flaw in the procedure but in this case what we find is, that a note is
prepared for the Standing Committee by one Narsing Rao signing on
behalf of the Special Officer and the Standing Committee purporting to
act as the Standing Committee, gran.ting sanction 0':1 16-6-1973. When
asked to explain as to what was the pr9redure that. was adopted by the
Special Officer and the Standing Committee, and whether the Standing
Committee. was functioning apart frail!
the Special Officer,
Mr.
Parmeshwar Rao, learned counsel appearing for the State of k::tdhra
Pradesh, submitted that the Special Officer is himself the Standing
B
c
I>
E
F
G
A
B
c
D
796
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[I 979] I s.c.a.
Committee and that the· note was sent to the Standing Commitcoe !hat
was Special Officer himself and that he, as the Standing Committee,
gave the sanction. We fi.nd it difficult to accept this explanation, for,
the High Court proceeded on the basis that by the resolutioa dated
15-5-1973, the Standing Committee accorded sanction under section
6 (1) ( c) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and authorised the
Special Officer to sign the order according sanction and
accordingly
the Special Officer issued the order dated 16-6-1973. It appears. before
the High Court, the parties proceeded on the basis that the Standing
Committee accorded sanction on 15-5-1973 a'nd authorised the Special
Officer to sign the order and accordingly the Special Officer issued the
sanction order. The draft order of the Standing Committe·~ which is
signed by the Special Officer states that he is the officer authorised by
the Standing Committee. The plea of the learned counsel for the State
that the Standrng Committee and the Special Officer are one and the
same is difficult to accept in the circumstances. As the Sp~cial Officer
who is entitled under the Act has not given the sanction as a Special
Officer or by himself exercising the powers of the Standing Committee
but issued the sanction order in pursuance of the sa·nction given by the
Standing Committee, we are unable to uphold th~ validity of the sanction. On this ground we accept the appeal, set aside the order of the
High Court and hold that the sanction granted by order dated
I 6-6-1973 is not valid in law.
S.R.
Appeal allowed.
I
f
\ .
>-