VIGILANCE MANUAL VOLUME III - AP Online

DECISION - 106
343
The appellant contended before the Supreme Court that the
order of sanction for prosecution was bad in law as all the relevant
papers and materials were not placed before the Deputy Inspector
General of Police, the sanctioning authority, and that concealing of
birth of an illegitimate child was not an offence under any statute and
if he had accepted money, it cannot be said that he obtained
gratification for doing or forbearing to do any official act or for showing
or forbearing to show in the exercise of his official functions, favour
or disfavour to any person.
The Supreme Court held that the order of sanction recites
that the Deputy Inspector General of Police “after fully and carefully
examining the material before him in regard to the aforesaid
allegation” considers that prima facie case is made against the
appellant and that the order of sanction fulfils the requirements of
section 6 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 (corresponding to
sec. 19 of P.C.Act, 1988).
The Supreme Court also held that when 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
public servant was capable of doing or intended to do such an act.
Upon facts which have been found by the High Court to be proved,
there can be no doubt that the appellant was guilty of grossly abusing
his position as a public servant within the meaning of section 5(1)(d)
of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 (corresponding to sec. 13(1)(d)
of P.C. Act, 1988) and thereby obtained for himself valuable thing or
pecuniary advantage and the charge under that section is established.
(106)
(A) P.C. Act, 1988 — Sec. 19
(B) Constitution of India — Art. 311(1)
(C) Sanction of prosecution — under P.C. Act