Whereas it is alleged that Shri R. J. Singh Ahluwalia, while working as a public servant in the capacity of Assistant in Co-ordination Section (CDIII). D. G. T. D., Udyog Bhawan, New Delhi on 31-12-1966 demanded an illegal gratification of Rs. 1,000/- from Shri A. S. Bawa, Director, Northern India Plywood Pvt. Ltd., Marshall House, Hanuman Road, New Delhi for showing him favour in the acceptance of his own application No. NIP/2681/66 as well as application No. DSB/2682/66 of the firm of his father M/s. D. S. Bawa & Co.. for setting up projects for the manufacture of Electronic and Radio Components;
And whereas it is alleged that in pursuance of this demand the said Shri R. J. Singh Ahluwalia, Assistant, phoned to Shri Bawa at about 12-15 p. m. at his office on 2-1-67 and repeated his demand of Rs. 1,000/- by way of illegal gratification and whereas Shri R. J. Singh Ahluwalia visited Shri A. S. Bawa in his office at Marshall House, Hanuman Road on 2-1-67 at about 5.30 p. m. and obtain-ed Rs. 1,000/- by way of illegal gratification from the said Shri Bawa, as a motive or reward for having registered the above mentioned two applications for necessary action.
And whereas I, after fully and carefully examining the material before me in regard to the abovementioned facts and the circumstances of the case consider that the said Shri R. J. Singh Ahluwalia should be prosecuted in the court of law for the said offences.
Now, therefore, I being the authority competent to remove the said R. J. Singh Ahluwalia from office do hereby accord sanction Under Section 6(1)(c) of the Prevention of Corruption Act for the prosecution of the said Shri R. J. Singh Ahluwalia for the said offence and any other offences punishable under other provisions of law in respect of the acts aforesaid and for the taking of cognisance of the said offences by a court of competent jurisdiction.
By order and in the name of the President.
Sd/K. Raja Ram 25/8/67 (K. Raja Ram) Deputy Secretary to the Government of India.
3. The appellant's learned Counsel asked for permission to raise a new point in challenge of this sanction. This new point sought to attack the sanction on two-fold ground. In the first instance he contended that this sanction was granted for prosecution under Section 6(1)(c) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and not under Section 6(1)(a). Secondly, it was contended that in the case of the appellant it was only the Home Department of the Government of India which could sanction the prosecution. This argument was founded on the Gazette Notification No. S. G. 2494 dated 3-8-1965 which amended the Government of India (Allocation of Business) Rules 1961 pursuant to the powers conferred on the President by Clause (3) of Article 77 of the Constitution. This ground of challenge had, of course, not been raised in either of the two courts below but since it went to the root of the case, being a jurisdictional point we considered it just and proper to allow it to be raised. We accordingly adjourned the hearing on July 21, 1970 to enable the counsel for the State to obtain instructions on this point and to inquire whether the Home Ministry had sanctioned the appellant's prosecution. On August 5, 1970, the next date of hearing, Shri Sachthey stated at the Bar that the Home Ministry had not sanctioned the appellant's prosecution and it was conceded before us that in the absence of such sanction the prosecution must fail. In view of what has just been stated the appeal cannot but succeed and allowing the same we set aside the appellant's conviction and sentence. The appellant is stated to be on bail. His bail bond is to be deemed to be cancelled.