VIGILANCE MANUAL VOLUME III - AP Online

510 DECISION - 232
On the issue, whether in case the accused holds plurality of
offices occupying each of which makes him a public servant, sanction
of each one of the competent authorities entitled to remove him from
each one of the offices held by him is necessary and whether if any
one of the competent authorities fails or declines to grant sanction
the Court is precluded from taking cognizance of the offence with
which the public servant is charged, the Supreme Court held that
only sanction of the authority competent to remove a public servant
from the office which has been misused by him would be necessary
for prosecuting him and not the sanction by all the competent
authorities concerned with all the offices held by a public servant at
the same time.
On the issue whether M.L.A. is a public servant within the
meaning of the expression in section 21(12)(a), section 21(3) and
section 21(7) I.P.C., the Supreme Court held that M.L.A. had not
been included in the definition of a public servant within the meaning
of any of the clauses of section 21 I.P.C. ‘In the service or pay of
Government’ in clause (12)(a) of section 21 I.P.C. meant the executive
Government whereas an M.L.A. is not in the service of the executive
Government and he is not paid by the executive Government. Also,
an M.L.A. does not perform any public duty either directed by the
Government or for the Government. He performs public duties cast
on him by the Constitution and his electorate. Thus he only discharges
constitutional functions for which he is remunerated by fees under
the Constitution and not by the executive.
On the issue whether sanction as contemplated by section 6
of Prevention of Corruption Act is necessary for prosecution of an
M.L.A., the Supreme Court held that since an M.L.A., is not a public
servant within the meaning of the expression in section 21 I.P.C., no
sanction is necessary to prosecute him.
(232)
(A) P.C. Act, 1988 — Sec. 17
(B) Investigation — by designated police officer