Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947: Ss. 2, 5( l)(e), 5(2), 6( 1)(c)- Public servant-Possession of pecuniary resources or property disproportionate to known sources of income-Prosecution after superannuation-Previous sanction-Whether necessary.

Judge of High Court/Supreme Court-Whether 'public servant', liable to prosecution under the Act-Sanctioning authority-Who is. 

Sanctioning authority-Whether vertically superior in the hiercarchy in which office of the public servant exists. Cl. (c) of s. 6( 1)-Whether independent of and separate from clauses (a) and (b )-Rule of ejusdem generis-Applicability of. 

Independence of Judiciary-Whether affected by application of the Prevention of Corruption Act to Judges of High Court/Supreme  Court-Issuance of guidelines by Court. Indian Penal Code, 1860: Ss. 19, 21-"Judge"-Whether includes a High Court/Supreme Court Judge- Whether 'public servant' under s. 2 of Prevention of Corruption Act. 

Constitution of India, 1950: Articles 74, 79, 121, 211, 124, 2 17, 218-Provision for initiation of proceeding for removal of a Judge Whether a ground for withholding criminal prosecution of a Judge for offence under s. 5( 1)( e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947. F Independence of Judiciary-Effect of application of Prevention of G Corruption Act, J.947 to Judges of superior Courts. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: Ss. 154, 173(2), 173(5)- offence committed by public servant under s. 5( l)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947-Complaint regarding investigation of Requirements-Police report/Charge sheet-Contents of:·Evidence Act., 1872: S. 106-offence committed under s. 5( !)(e) of Prevention of corruption Act, 1947-Possession of property disproportionate to known sources-Whether fact within special knowledge of the A complaint against the appellant, a former Chief Justice of a High Court, was made to the CBI on which a case under s. 5(2) read with s. 5( l)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 was registered C on 24.2.1976. On 28.2.1976 the F.l.R. was filed in the court of Special Judge. The appellant proceeded on leave from 9.3.1976 and retired on 8.4.1976 on attaining the age of superannuation. 

The investigation culminated in the filing of charge-sheet/final report under s. 173(2), Cr. P.C. against the appellant on 15.12.1977  before the Special Judge. The Charge-sheet stated that the appellant after assuming office of the Chief Justice on 1.5.1969 gradually commeced accumulation of - assets and was in possession of pecuniary resources and property, in his name and in the names of his wife and two sons, disproportionate to his  known sources of income for the period between the date of his appointment as Chief Justice and the date of registration of the case, and thereby he committed the offence of criminal misconduct under s. S(l){e), punishable under s. 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947. The Special Judge issued process for appearance of the appellant. Meanwhile , the appellant moved the High Court under s. 482, Cr. P.C. F to quash the said criminal proceedings. 

The matter was heard by a Full Bench of the High Court which dismissed the application by majority; but granted a certificate under Articles 132(1) and 134( l)(c) of the Constitution in view of the important question of law involved. 

In appeal to this Court it was contended by the appellant that the provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 do not apply to a Judge of a superior Court as for such prosecution previous sanction of an authority competent to remove a public servant as provided under s. 6 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 is imperative and power H to remove a Judge is not vested in any single individual authority but is vested in the two Houses of Parliament and the President under Article 124(4) of the Constitution; that the Parliament cannot be the sanctioning authority for the purpose of s. 6 and if the President is regarded as the authority, he cannot act independently as he exercises his powers by .and with the advice of his Council of Ministers and the Executive may misuse the power by interfering with the judiciary; that s. 6 applies only in cases where there is master and servant relationship between the public servant and the authority competent to remove him, and where there is vertical hierarchy of public offices and the sanctioning authority is vertically superior in the hierarchy in which office of the public servant against whom sanction is sought exists; that no prosecution can be launched against a Judge of a superior Court under the provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act except in the mode envisaged by Article 124(4) of the Constitution; that no law prohibits a public servant having in his possession assets disproportionate to his known sources of income and such possession becomes an offence only when the public servant is unable to account for it; and that the public servant is entitled to an opportunity by the investigating officer to explain disproportionality between the assets and the known sources of income and the charge sheet must contain such an averment, and failure to mention that requirement would vitiate the charge-sheet and render it invalid and, no offence under s. 5(1)(e) of the Act could be made out.

On the questions: (I) whether a Judge of a High Court or of the Supreme Court is a 'public servant' within the meaning of s. 2 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947; (2) whether a Judge of the High Court including the Chief Justice, or a Judge of the · Supreme Court can be prosecuted for an offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947; and (3) who is the competent authority to remove a Judge either of the Supreme Court or of the High Court from his office in order to enable that authority to grant sanction for prosecution of the Judge under the provisions of s. 6 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947.