VIGILANCE MANUAL VOLUME III - AP Online

DECISION - 10
203
It is not necessary to consider whether or not the
Public Servant was capable of doing or intended to
do the act charged. If the charge is that Public
Servant accepted bribe for influencing a superior
officer, it is not necessary to specify the superior
officer sought to be influenced.
(D) P.C. Act, 1988 — Sec. 19
(E) Sanction of prosecution — under P.C. Act
Sanction of prosecution under the P.C. Act can be
accorded by an authority equal in rank to the
appointing authority or higher in rank. It need not
be by the very same authority who made the
appointment or by his direct superior.
Mahesh Prasad vs. State of Uttar Pradesh,
AIR 1955 SC 70
The appellant, a railway employee, accepted illegal
gratification of Rs.150/- from an ex-employee as a motive for getting
him reemployed by arranging with some superior officer. The Special
Police Establishment laid a trap and caught him red-handed. He
was tried and convicted under section 161 Indian Penal Code
(corresponding to sec. 7 of P.C. Act, 1988). The conviction was
maintained by the higher courts.
The Supreme Court held (a) that if a public servant is charged
under Section 161 I.P.C. and it is alleged that the illegal gratification
was taken by him for doing or procuring an official act, it is not
necessary for the Court to consider whether or not the accused as
public servant was capable of doing or intended to do such an act;
(b) that where bribe is alleged to have been received by the accused
as a public servant for influencing some superior officer to do an act,
the charge framed against such accused under section 161 I.P.C.
need not specify the particular superior officer sought to be influenced
and (c) that in view of Art. 311 (1) of Constitution, a sanction under
section 6(c) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 (corresponding