# • V. K. SHARMA v. THE STATE (DELHI ADMINISTRATION)

- **Citation:** [1975] 3 S.C.R. 922
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1975-03-13
- **Bench:** A. Alagir!Swami, N. L. Untwalia
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/v-k-sharma-v-the-state-delhi-administration-6422
- **Pages:** 5

## Headnote

Section, 4, 5(1)(a)(b)(d), 5(2) of Prevelllion of Corruption Act.-Section
161 of l.P.C.-Pres11mptio11 under Section 4 of the Act-Competem authority to
accord sanction whether should be competent to remove the accused from Govt.
service or from temporary oOlce.
·
The appellant was convicted under section 5(2) of thr, Prevention of Corruption Act read with section 5 (1 )(d) and under section 161 of the Indian Penal
A
B
Cede bv the Trial Court and was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for 2!
C
years. He was also sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 1000. The Delhi High Co11rt
dismissed the appellant's appeal but reduced the sentence from 2f years to 1
year and reduced the fine from Rs. HlOO to Rs. 500. The appellant was a Lower
,.,,ivision Clerk in the Central Secretariat. He was appointed to the temporary
post of Rationing Inspector having a lien on the post in the Central Secretariat.
The appellant demanded a sum of Rs. 100 as bribe from au owner of a Ration
Depot.
A trap was arranged and currency notes bearing initials were handed
over to the appellant. He was caught red handed. The appellant admitted the
receipt of the currency notes· worth Rs. 80 /-. He, however, gave explanai-ion of
J
the receipt of the money.
Both the Courts below rejected the explanation •
untrue.
The counsel for the appellant contended :
(1) That the sanction given by P. W:Iyer iri this case was invalid an'.! not in
nccordancc with section 6 of the Act.
(2) Th<'.t P.W. Arora had no authority to lay a trap to search the person of
the ap;Jellant or to make an investigation in the case.
Whatever was done by
E
him 11<1> in contrnvention of section 5A of the Ac.t.
(}l That neither of the charges under section 5(1)(d) of the Act or section
161 uf. th·~ Penal Code was legally proved against the appellant.
HELD : While dismissing the appeal,
The appellant had his lien in the Central Secretariat. The Chief Controller,
Rationing. would· have been competent to remove th·e appellant from his office
as Rationing Inspector but not from his office in the Central Secretariat. Therefore, he was not a competent authority for according sa.nction. The sanction is
to be acccrded bi' an authority competent to remove the accused from Government service. [925 BJ
HELD FURTHER : Even if the search is assumed to be illegal it is of no
consequence in this case.
The presumption arising under section 4 of the Act
when a public servant accepts gratification other than legal remuneration is not
availab.Je to the J'rosecution for proving the charge under section 5 of the Act
wi~h r~ference to clause (d) of sub-se~tion (1) of section 5. The presumption
· anses 10 regard to an offence under sect10n 1.61 of the Penal Code or to an offence
under section 5 ( l) (a) or (b). The High Court has elaborately and fully dealt
with the submission made on behalf of the appellant.
There is no justification
to interfere with the order of the High Court. [925 D, E-G]
CRDHNAL APPEU.jATE JuR1so1cnoN : Criminal Appeal No. 73 of
1971.
.
Appeal by Special leave from the Judgment and Order dated the
• September, 1970 of the Delhi High Court r,1 Criminal Appeal No.
'f 1968.
·F
G
H
v. K. SHARMA v. DELHI ADMN. (Vntwalia, J.)
923
A
K. B. Ro.h(agi, for the appellant.
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
5. N. Anand and R. N. Sachthey, for the respondent.

## Text

•
V. K. SHARMA
v.
THE STATE (DELHI ADMINISTRATION)
March 13, 1975
(A. ALAGIR!SWAMI AND N. L. UNTWALIA, JJ.]
Section, 4, 5(1)(a)(b)(d), 5(2) of Prevelllion of Corruption Act.-Section
161 of l.P.C.-Pres11mptio11 under Section 4 of the Act-Competem authority to
accord sanction whether should be competent to remove the accused from Govt.
service or from temporary oOlce.
·
The appellant was convicted under section 5(2) of thr, Prevention of Corruption Act read with section 5 (1 )(d) and under section 161 of the Indian Penal
A
B
Cede bv the Trial Court and was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for 2!
C
years. He was also sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 1000. The Delhi High Co11rt
dismissed the appellant's appeal but reduced the sentence from 2f years to 1
year and reduced the fine from Rs. HlOO to Rs. 500. The appellant was a Lower
,.,,ivision Clerk in the Central Secretariat. He was appointed to the temporary
post of Rationing Inspector having a lien on the post in the Central Secretariat.
The appellant demanded a sum of Rs. 100 as bribe from au owner of a Ration
Depot.
A trap was arranged and currency notes bearing initials were handed
over to the appellant. He was caught red handed. The appellant admitted the
receipt of the currency notes· worth Rs. 80 /-. He, however, gave explanai-ion of
J
the receipt of the money.
Both the Courts below rejected the explanation •
untrue.
The counsel for the appellant contended :
(1) That the sanction given by P. W:Iyer iri this case was invalid an'.! not in
nccordancc with section 6 of the Act.
(2) Th<'.t P.W. Arora had no authority to lay a trap to search the person of
the ap;Jellant or to make an investigation in the case.
Whatever was done by
E
him 11<1> in contrnvention of section 5A of the Ac.t.
(}l That neither of the charges under section 5(1)(d) of the Act or section
161 uf. th·~ Penal Code was legally proved against the appellant.
HELD : While dismissing the appeal,
The appellant had his lien in the Central Secretariat. The Chief Controller,
Rationing. would· have been competent to remove th·e appellant from his office
as Rationing Inspector but not from his office in the Central Secretariat. Therefore, he was not a competent authority for according sa.nction. The sanction is
to be acccrded bi' an authority competent to remove the accused from Government service. [925 BJ
HELD FURTHER : Even if the search is assumed to be illegal it is of no
consequence in this case.
The presumption arising under section 4 of the Act
when a public servant accepts gratification other than legal remuneration is not
availab.Je to the J'rosecution for proving the charge under section 5 of the Act
wi~h r~ference to clause (d) of sub-se~tion (1) of section 5. The presumption
· anses 10 regard to an offence under sect10n 1.61 of the Penal Code or to an offence
under section 5 ( l) (a) or (b). The High Court has elaborately and fully dealt
with the submission made on behalf of the appellant.
There is no justification
to interfere with the order of the High Court. [925 D, E-G]
CRDHNAL APPEU.jATE JuR1so1cnoN : Criminal Appeal No. 73 of
1971.
.
Appeal by Special leave from the Judgment and Order dated the
• September, 1970 of the Delhi High Court r,1 Criminal Appeal No.
'f 1968.
·F
G
H
v. K. SHARMA v. DELHI ADMN. (Vntwalia, J.)
923
A
K. B. Ro.h(agi, for the appellant.
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
5. N. Anand and R. N. Sachthey, for the respondent.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
UNTWALIA, J.
The appellant in this appeaL by special leave has
been convicted under section 5 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act,
1947-hereinafter called the Act, read with section 5Ql)(d) and under
·section 161 of the Indian Penal Code.
The Trial Judge. sentenced
the appellant u1.1der each count to undergo rigorous imprisonment
for : 1· years.
Sentences to run concurrently.
He was also sentenced
to P'JY a fine of Rs. 1,000 /- under section 5 (1) ( d) of the Act.
The
Delhi High Court dismissed the appellant's appeal subject to
the
reduction in his sentences.
The concurrent sentence of rigorous impriso',1ment ~or 2t years has been reduced to one year under each
count ancl the imposition of fine of Rs. 1,000 1- has been reduced to
Rs. 500/-.
The appellant was a quasi-permanent Lower Division Clerk of
the Central Secretariat Clerical Service, Grade II and was borne on the
cadre of Community Development and Co-operation.
At the releva!at
time he was working as Inspector in the Rationing Department.
P.W.3 Madan Lal was the owner of Rationing Depot in Gandhi
Nagm; Delhi.
His complaint was that the appella!at had been demanding Rs. 100/- per month by way of bribe under threat of implicatij_)g
him in some false case.
The appellant came to the said witness on
1. 7 .1967 and demanded the payment of Rs. 100 /- that very
day.
Madan Lal complained to P.W. Gian Chand Sharma, a Municipal
Councillor about this demand and the latter called him to his house
in the afternoon;
P.W. S.L. Arora, Assistant Controller of Rationinm
was called to the Councillor's place.
He after recording the statement
of Mad•an Lal, initialled 8 currency i10tes of Rs. 10 /- each, of tl1e total
value of Rs. 80/-. Shri Arora instructed Madan Lal to go to the
appellant's office aldagwith two witnesses.
Madan Lal proceeded to
the appellant's office with P.W.5 Agya Ram Batra and P.W.8 Deputy
Lal Telwar.
He handed over the amount of Rs. 80/ to the appellant
saying_ that he would pay Rs. 20/- later on.
On the giving of signal
by Deputy Lal, Arora arrived and recovered the currency notes from
the pocket of the appellant's bush-shirt.
The amount recovered from
the appellant's bush-shirt consisted of the same 8
currency
notes
which -had been earlier initialled by Arora.
After obtaining the
sanction of P.W.1. S. P. Iyer, Deputy Secretary, Department of Community Development and Co-operation, Government of India for the
prosecution of the appellant and after investigation the police filed a
challan against him under section 5 (1) ( d) of the Act and under section 161 of the Penal Code.
Jhe appellant admitted tl\e receipt of the sum of Rs. 80/- in the
8 currency notes from _Madan Lal but denied to have received the sum
by way of _illegal gratification 'Or by corrupt or illegal means abusing
his position as public servant.
He gave an interesting and curious explanation of the receipt of Rs. 80/- by him from Madan Lal.
924
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[19751 3 s.c.R.
The two courts below relying upon the evidence of Prose.cut~on
Witnesses Madan Lal, Arora, Agya Ram and Deputy. Lal and re3ecttng
the explana\ion of the appellant as untrue have convicted and sentenc·
.cd him as stated above.
~.Ir. K. B. Rohtagi, learned counsel for the appellant made
the
following submissions. to press for the acquittal of his client :
(1) That the sanction given by P. W. Iyer in this case was
invalid and not in accordance with section 6 of the
Act.
A
B
(2) That P.W. Arora had no authority to Jay a trap or
to search the person of the appellant or to make an
investigation in the case.
Whatever was done by him
C
was in contravention of section SA of the Act.
(3) That neither of the charges under section 5(l)(d) of
the Act or secti'on 161 of the Penal Code was legally
proved against the appellant.
The High Court has elaborately and fully dealt with the submissions
made on behalf of the appellant many of which were repeated in this
Court.
We see no justification to interfere with the order of the
High Court.
As already stated the appellant was a quasi-permanent Lower
Division Clerk o~ the Central Secretariat Clerical Service.
He was
!Jome in the cadre of Community Development and Co-o:::ieration.
P.W. Iyer was the Deputy Secretary of that Department. He was
competer.l to remove the appellant from his oflice within the meaning
of clause (c) of sub-section ( l) of section 6 of the Act.
There was
no dispute or debate in .that regard.
No question was put to him in
his cross-examinafron to challenge his authority.
But the contention
on behalf of the appellant has been that at the time of committing the
alleged offence he was working in the post of Rationing Inspector
having been appointed to that post sometime back.
The Chief Controller •of Rationing was the proper authority who could remove him
from that post and hence he was the only competent authority to
accord sanction for the prosecution of the appellant.
We see
no
substance in this argument. lt is not clear whether the appellant came
as a loanee to the Rati·oning Department from the Central Secretariat.
What is, however, clear on the basis of the various documents considered in the judgment of the High Court is that the appellant was
relieved of his duties in the Ministry of Community Development and
Co-·operation, Government of India on the afternoon of the -20th
November, 1965 and thereafter he joined his duties
as
Rationing
· Inspector on beinμ- appointed to that post a few days earlier on the
15th of November.
On a consideration of the rtlevant materials the
High Court has rightly held that the appellant was an employee of
the Central Secretariat at the time of the commission of the offence
but was appointed to the temporary post of Insoector, Rationing. We
may add that even assuming the argument put forward on behalf "of
D
E
F
G
H
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
v. K. SHAR~IA I". DHHI AD~IN. (U111walia, .l.)
925.
the
<tpp~llant l'o be correct that he did not come to the Rationing
Department as a loanec from the Central Secretariat, there is no difliculty in appreciating that he must have come temporarily to
the
Rationing Department with his lien on his ·post i!l the Central Secretari:.it.
The purport of taking the sanction from the authority c·ompctcnt to remove a corrupt Governme11t servant from his office is not
only to remove him from his temporary oftice but to remove him from
Gov'crnment service.
The Chief Controller, Rationing would have
been competent to remove the appellant from his office as Rationing
I nspcctor but not from his office in the Central Secretariat.
That
being so P.W. lyer in our judgment was the competent authority to
accord sanction for the prosecution of the appellant.
The second submission made ·on behalf of the appellant is devoid
of any substance.
After the incident in the office of the appellant
in th.: afternoon of the 1st of July, I 967 the First Information Report
was lodged with the. police.
The investigati'on within the meaning of
section SA ot the Act started thereafter.
No semblance of an:y argument could be advanced before us to show that the investigation made
thereafter w1s not in accordance with the said provision of law. Section 5 A is not meant to clothe a person with authority or competency
to lay a trap.
It is not necessary to go int'O the question
as
to
whether P.W. Arora was legally competent to search the person of
the appellant.
Even assuming it to be illegal it is of no consequence
in this case.
On search the 8 notes ·of Rs. 10/- each were recovered ..
The recovery o( the notes is admitted by the appellant.
The High Court has relied upon several decisions of this
Court
for coming to the conclusion that the charges against the appellant
must be deemed to have been proved.
We may make a slight clarification here.
The, presumption arising under section 4 of the Act
when a public servant accepts gratification other than legal remuneration is not available fo the prosecution for proving the charge under
section 5 ( 2) of the Act with reference to clause ( d) of sltb-section
(I).
The presumption arises in regard to an offence unde( section
161 of the Penal Code or to an offence referred to in clause (a) or .
clause (b) of sub-section (I) 'Of section 5 of the Act.
On the facts of
this case, therefore, it must be held that. the charge against the appellant that h obtained for himself pecuniary advantage in the sum of
Rs. 80 /- by corrupt or illegal means and by abusing hii position as a
pub! ic servant must be held to_ have been proved on the evidence of
P.Ws Madan Lal, Agya Ram and Deputy Lal and ll'Jt on the basis
of the rule of presumption engrafted in section 4. On the other hand
the charge under section 161 of the Penal Code must be held to have
been proved by pressing into service the rule of presumption enacted
in section 4 of the Act.
The explanation given by the appellant even
on the test of pre-ponderer,ce of probability was not only unsatisfactory arid unacceptable but untrue.
In that view of the matter acceptance of the· gratification of Rs. 80/- by him from P.W. Madan Lal
must be presumed ro have been done as a motive or reward such as
is mentioned in section 161 of the Penal Code.
Almost an identical
case on the point is the decision of a Constitution Bench of this Court
926
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
U9751 3 s.c.R.
in Sri C. I. Emden v. The State of U.P.('). There also the appellant
before the Supreme Court demanded from the complainant R,s. 400/-
per month in order that the complainant may be allowed to carry
out his contract peacefully without any
harassment.
A sum
of
Rs. 375/- was proved to have been paid to the appellant. The conviction under section 161 of the Penal Code was maintained only on the
basis of the presumption arisirlg under section 4 of the Act. On
identical facts conviction under section 5(2) was also upheld.
We
m<1y refer to the decision of this Court in V. D. Jhangan v. State of
Uttar Pradesh('). On the f~cts of that case it was held that the prosecution evidence sufficiently established the charges under section 5(2)
read with section 5 (1) ( d) of the Act and section 161 of the Penal
Code.
In regard to the latter charge the rule of presumption was
applied as laid down by this Court in the case of C. f. Emden referred to above.
·
For the reasons stated above, we find no substance in the appeal
and maintain the order of conviction and sentence passed against the
appellant.
P.H.P.
(l) [1960] (2) S.C.R. 59
(2) [1966] (3) S.C.R. 736.
Appeal dismis_;cd.
A
B
c