S. A. Venkataraman vs The State(And Connected Appeal)

Supreme Court of India (Full Bench (FB)- Three Judge)

Appeal (Crl.), 130 of 1956, Judgment Date: Dec 03, 1957

HEADNOTE:

The appellant who was a public servant was dismissed from service after departmental inquiry. Thereafter he was charged with having committed the offence of criminal misconduct under S. 5(2), Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 and was convicted. No sanction under s. 6 of the Act was produced, before the trial Court. It was contended that the Court could not take cognizance of the offence without there being a proper sanction to prosecute : Held, that no sanction under s. 6 of the Act was necessary for the prosecution of the appellant as he was not a public servant at the time of the taking of cognizance of the offence. In construing the provisions of a statute it is essential for a Court, in the first instance, to give effect to the natural meaning of the words used therein, if those words are clear enough. It is only in the case of any ambiguity that a Court is entitled to ascertain the intention of the legislature. Where a general power to take cognizance of an offence is vested in a Court, any prohibition to the exercise of that power, by any provision of law, must be confined to the terms of the prohibition. The words in s. 6(1) of the Act are clear enough and must be given effect to. The more important words in cl. (c) of s. 6(1) are " of the authority competent to remove him from his office ". A public servant who has ceased to be a public servant is not a person removable from any office by competent authority. The conclusion is inevitable that at the time a Court is asked to take cognizance not only must the offence have been committed by a public servant but the person accused must still be a public servant removable from his office by a competent authority before the provisions of s. 6 can apply.

S. A. Venkataraman vs The State(And Connected Appeal)