R.R. CHARI versus STATE OF U. P.

R.R. CHARI versus STATE OF U. P.

The Sessions Judge had jurisdiction to try the appellant as the Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1952, did not mandate transfer of already committed cases to Special Judges. However, the sanction for prosecution under s.6 of the Prevention of Corruption Act was invalid as only the Assam Government, being the authority...

Source-derived case information.

Parties
Appellant: R.R. Chari; Respondent: State of U.P.
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
28 March 1962
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Supreme Court Appeal From Judgment and Order Dated March 17, 1958, of the Allahabad High Court in Criminal Appeal No. 1135 of 1953
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Bribery, Forgery, Sanction for Prosecution, Jurisdiction of Courts, Prevention of Corruption, Loaned Public Servants
Criminal Law Public Service Law Bribery Forgery Sanction for Prosecution Jurisdiction of Courts Prevention of Corruption Loaned Public Servants

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

R.R. Chari

Appellant

State of U.P.

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Supreme Court Appeal From Judgment and Order Dated March 17, 1958, of the Allahabad High Court in Criminal Appeal No. 1135 of 1953

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the trial of the appellant by the Sessions Judge was illegal under the Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1952, which required trial by a Special Judge.
  2. 2 Whether the sanction granted by the Central Government for prosecution was valid under relevant statutes, given appellant's permanent employment with Assam Government.
  3. 3 Whether conviction under s. 467 Indian Penal Code could stand, being based on uncorroborated accomplice evidence.

Ratio Decidendi

The Sessions Judge had jurisdiction to try the appellant as the Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1952, did not mandate transfer of already committed cases to Special Judges. However, the sanction for prosecution under s.6 of the Prevention of Corruption Act was invalid as only the Assam Government, being the authority competent to remove the appellant from service, could sanction his prosecution while he was permanently employed by them. Accordingly, the trial and conviction for offences requiring such sanction were without jurisdiction. Moreover, conviction under s.467 IPC could not stand as it was based solely on uncorroborated accomplice evidence.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • Conviction and sentence under s.161 and s.467 Indian Penal Code set aside for want of valid sanction and lack of corroboration respectively.
  • Appellant acquitted and discharged in respect of those offences.