SHIV RAJ SINGH versus DELHI ADMINISTRATION

SHIV RAJ SINGH versus DELHI ADMINISTRATION

The order of sanction was valid and complied with s.6 of the Prevention of Corruption Act. Obtaining money for refraining from an imaginary prosecution is an offence under s.161 IPC, and gross abuse of official position for pecuniary advantage is an offence under s.5(1)(d) of the Act. The sentence imposed was not excessive given the circumstances.

Parties
Appellant: Shiv Raj Singh; Respondent: Delhi Administration
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
01 May 1968
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Supreme Court Appeal by Special Leave From Punjab High Court Judgment Affirming Conviction
Outcome
Appeal dismissed, conviction and sentence affirmed
Legal Topics
Prevention of Corruption, Bribery, Sanction for Prosecution
Criminal Law Prevention of Corruption Bribery Sanction for Prosecution

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Shiv Raj Singh

Appellant

Delhi Administration

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Supreme Court Appeal by Special Leave From Punjab High Court Judgment Affirming Conviction

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the order of sanction under s.6 of the Prevention of Corruption Act was valid and sufficient
  2. 2 Whether receipt of money by the appellant constituted an offence under s.161 IPC and s.5(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act
  3. 3 Whether the sentence imposed was excessive

Ratio Decidendi

The order of sanction was valid and complied with s.6 of the Prevention of Corruption Act. Obtaining money for refraining from an imaginary prosecution is an offence under s.161 IPC, and gross abuse of official position for pecuniary advantage is an offence under s.5(1)(d) of the Act. The sentence imposed was not excessive given the circumstances.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed, conviction and sentence affirmed

Orders

  • Judgment of Punjab High Court dated February 17, 1966 in Criminal Appeal No. 63-D of 1964 affirmed
  • Appellant's conviction under s.5(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act and s.161 IPC upheld