VIGILANCE MANUAL VOLUME III - AP Online

912 DECISION - 505
public servant, for the purpose of satisfying the court, should be “any
lawful source”. Besides being the lawful source the Explanation
further enjoins that receipt of such income should have been intimated
by the public servant in accordance with the provisions of any law
applicable to such public servant at the relevant time. So a public
servant cannot now escape from the tentacles of sec.13(1)(e) of the
P.C.Act by showing other legally forbidden sources, albeit such
sources are outside the purview of clauses (a) to (d) of the subsection.
The Supreme Court held that there is no force in the
contention that the offences under sec.13(1)(e) of the P.C.Act cannot
be abetted by another person and that consequently, in a prosecution
for offences under sec.13(1)(e), of public servants, their kith and kin
also could be arraigned as co-accused to face the said offence read
with sec. 109 of IPC.
(505)
(A) P.C. Act, 1988 — Sec. 19
(B) Sanction of prosecution — under P.C. Act
It is not open to the Court of appeal to reverse a
conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court
on the mere premise that there was no valid sanction
to prosecute.
Central Bureau of Investigation vs. V.K. Sehgal,
2000(2) SLJ SC 85
In a case where the accused failed to raise the question of
valid sanction, the trial would normally proceed to its logical end by
making judicial scrutiny of the entire materials. If that case ends in
conviction, there is no question of failure of justice on the mere
premise that no valid sanction was accorded for prosecuting the public
servant, because the very purpose of providing such a filtering check
is to safeguard public servants from frivolous or malafide or vindictive