VIGILANCE MANUAL VOLUME III - AP Online

DECISION - 248
539
show what the charges were or that the committee was satisfied on
the basis of perusal of the relevant documents that they stood proved.
The Committee proceeded on the presumption that in view of the
petitioner’s failure to reply, it was not required to establish the charges.
The High Court held that the order of dismissal cannot, therefore, be
sustained. The High Court also stated that it shall be open to the
disciplinary authority to proceed further in respect of disciplinary action
from the stage where the case was before the said resolution was passed.
(248)
(A) Constitution of India — Art. 20(2)
(B) Cr.P.C. — Sec. 300(1)
(C) Sanction of prosecution — where invalid, subsequent
trial with proper sanction, not barred
Where accused is acquitted on the ground that the
prosecution was without proper sanction, subsequent
trial after obtaining proper sanction, not barred.
Bishambhar Nath Kanaujia vs. State of U.P.,
1986 Cri.L.J. ALL 1818
The applicant was convicted and sentenced to one year R.I.
each under sec. 161 IPC and sec. 5 (2) of P.C. Act, 1947
(corresponding to secs. 7 and 13(2) of P.C. Act, 1988). He preferred
an appeal and the High Court allowed it solely on the ground that the
prosecution was without proper sanction and the defect vitiated the
trial. The conviction and sentence were therefore set aside. The
prosecution obtained fresh sanction and filed charge sheet before
the Special Judge, who took cognizance of the same. The applicant
moved an application before the trial judge praying that he should
not be tried for the second time but it was rejected and the matter
ultimately came up before the High Court.
The High Court held that the order setting aside the conviction
washes out the effect of the previous conviction. A conviction on retrial
is a conviction in the same prosecution. It is neither the second