VIGILANCE MANUAL VOLUME III - AP Online

DECISION - 231
(231)
507
(A) I.P.C. — Sec. 21
(B) Public Servant
M.L.A. is not a public servant within the meaning of
the expression in sec. 21 I.P.C.
(C) P.C. Act, 1988 — Sec. 19
(D) Sanction of prosecution — under P.C. Act
(i) Trial without valid sanction of competent authority
where the same is necessary is without jurisdiction
and ab initio void.
(ii) Sanction not required for prosecution of a public
servant for offences enumerated in section 5 of
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 if he has ceased
to be a public servant by the time the Court is called
upon to take cognizance of the offence alleged to
have been committed by him as public servant.
(iii) Where accused holds plurality of offices
occupying each of which makes him a public
servant, sanction of the authority competent to
remove the public servant from the office which has
been misused or abused by him would alone be
necessary. Sanction from other authorities of
different offices not necessary.
R.S. Nayak vs. A.R. Antulay,
1984(1) SLR SC 619
The accused, Sri A.R. Antulay, was Chief Minister of
Maharashtra from 1980 till 20-1-82 and continued to be a Member of
the Maharashtra Legislative Assembly. Sri Nayak, the complainant,
moved the Government of Maharashtra by his application dated 1-9-
81 requesting him to grant sanction to prosecute the accused, as
required under section 6 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947