TMI Blog2005 (3) TMI 781X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... members and the total expenditure incurred by the accused during these period is ₹ 2,41,382.85 and the total assets acquired by the accused both movable and immovable from May 25, 1964 to June 27, 1986 is ₹ 9,51,606.66 ps. Therefore, the accused has to account for difference between the two. In the present case the learned additional sessions Judge took a very narrow view that all the papers were not placed before the Court to show that there was proper application of mind by the sanctioning authority. The view taken by learned Special Judge was not correct and the learned Single Judge correctly set aside the order. In the present case, the sanction order itself discloses the facts that the incumbent is being prosecuted under the provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act for accumulating moveable and immovable assets which is disproportionate to his known source of income and he has failed to give satisfactory account for the same. In the present case, facts mentioned in sanction order are eloquent for constituting prima facie offence u/s 5(2) read with Section 5(1)(e) of the Act. Therefore, there is due application of mind by sanctioning authority and the sanctio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... filed the written explanation. However, he did not choose to lead any defence evidence. The learned Special Judge after hearing the parties framed following questions which read as under:- 1. Whether the sanction order is valid? 2. Whether the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubt that the accused being Technician and then Technical Supervisor in Bangalore Telephones, being a public servant during the period from 25.5.1964 to 27.6.1986 acquired assets which were disproportionate to his known sources of income as on 27.6.1986 as the accused was in possession of movables and immovable assets worth ₹ 4,01,454.58 Ps. Which were disproportionate to his known source of income for which he could not give satisfactory account? 3. Whether the prosecution has proved beyond all reasonable doubt that the accused has committed the offence under Section 5(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, punishable under Section 5(2) of the said Act? 4. What order? 4. Learned Special Judge acquitted the accused and held that there was no proper sanction. Learned Special Judge held that the prosecution has failed to prove the valid Sanction under Exhibit P-83 and therefore, prosecut ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... le of scooter/car, sale proceeds of jewellery and income received by family members. Whereas it has been made to appear that the total expenditure incurred by the said Shri C.S. Krishnamurthy in the above said period from 25.5.1964 to 25.6.1986 was ₹ 2,41,382.85Ps. Whereas it has been, made to appear that the total assets both movable and immovable acquired by the said Shri C.S. Krishnamurthy during the check period from 25.5.1964 to 27.6.1986 amounted to ₹ 9,51,606.66 Ps. Whereas it has been made to appear that the said Shri C.S. Krishnamurthy during the entire period of his service as a public servant have likely savings to the tune of ₹ 5,50,152.08 ps. only against which has had been found in possession of total assets both movable and immovable to the tune of ₹ 9,51,606.66 ps. The extent of disproportionate assets possessed by Shri C.S. Krishnamurthy as on 27.6.1986 comes to ₹ 4,01,454.58 Ps. Whereas the said acts constitute offence punishable under Section 5(2) r/2 5(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, (Act II of 1947). And whereas, I, V. Partha Sarthy being the authority competent to remove Shri C.S. Krishnamurthy from office after f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Reliance Industries loan received from friends and family members, gain towards sale of scooter/car, sale proceeds of jewellery and income received by family members and the total expenditure incurred by the accused during these period is ₹ 2,41,382.85 and the total assets acquired by the accused both movable and immovable from May 25, 1964 to June 27, 1986 is ₹ 9,51,606.66 ps. Therefore, the accused has to account for difference between the two. The sanction itself shows that there is something to be accounted by the accused. When the sanction itself is very expressive, then in that case, the argument that particular material was not properly placed before the sanctioning authority for according sanction and sanctioning authority has not applied its mind becomes unsustainable. When sanction order itself is eloquent enough, then in that case only formal evidence has to be produced by the sanctioning authority or by any other evidence that the sanction was accorded by a competent person with due application of mind. In the present case the learned additional sessions Judge took a very narrow view that all the papers were not placed before the Court to show that there was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... be given in respect of the facts constituting the offence charged equally applies to the sanction under S.6 of the Act. In the present case all the facts constituting the offence of misconduct with which the appellant was charged were placed before the Government. The second principle, namely, that the facts should be referred to on the face of the sanction and if they do not so appear, the prosecution must prove them by extraneous evidence, is certainly sound having regard to the purpose of the requirements of a sanction. 9. Therefore, the ratio is sanction order should speak for itself and in case the facts do not so appear, it should be proved by leading evidence that all the particulars were placed before the sanctioning authority for due application of mind. In case the sanction speaks for itself then the satisfaction of the sanctioning authority is apparent by reading the order. In the present case, the sanction order speaks for itself that the incumbent has to account for the assets disproportionate to his known source of income. That is contained in the sanction order itself. More so, as pointed out, the sanctioning authority has come in the witness box as witness No.40 and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ly a report of the Vigilance Department was placed before him. The High Court came to the finding that although the Personal Assistant to the City Commissioner of Police, Madras has deposed that proper sanction was accorded by the City Commissioner of Police after going though the detailed report of vigilance, but the statements recorded during the investigation was not placed before sanctioning authority and therefore, there was no proper application of mind by sanctioning authority, as such sanction was invalid. But in the present case, the sanction order itself discloses the facts that the incumbent is being prosecuted under the provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act for accumulating moveable and immovable assets worth ₹ 4,01,454.58 paise which is disproportionate to his known source of income and he has failed to give satisfactory account for the same. In the present case, facts mentioned in sanction order are eloquent for constituting prima facie offence under Section 5(2) read with Section 5(1)(e) of the Act. Therefore, there is due application of mind by sanctioning authority and the sanction is valid. 13. Learned counsel for appellant submitted that offence wa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
