Soumyndra Narain Chowdhury vs State (Through Cbi) on 9 September, 1991
15. Thus from the prosecution's own case it is absolutely clear that whatever the accused-petitioners did was in their capacity as the employees of the Steel Authority and also their alleged intention was to cheat the said Authority. From the above admitted facts of the prosecution, if accepted would clearly show that the allegation of the prosecution was that the accused-petitioners abused their position as a public servant, namely as officials of the Steel Authority of India. In the written argument for the prosecution, it has also been stated that payments were made to the accused-petitioners by the transporter for passing the bills and as such the alleged conspiracy or act of the accused-petitioners was to obtain pecuniary advantage. Thus, I am of the opinion that the present case against the accused-petitioners on the basis of the allegations of the prosecution squarely comes within the provisions of Section 5 Corruption Act and as such sanction under Section 6 of the Act is a must, which is absent in the cases in hand. As stated earlier, there is no dispute at the Bar that the accused-petitioners were public servant. It may be stated that Patna High Court in Subrato Shaha v. State of Bihar 1990 (1) Crimes 8 held that the employee of the Steel Authority of India is a public servant under the provisions of Section 21, IPC and as such sanction is required for prosecution of such employee. In view of the clear provision of Section 21, IPC I find no reason to hold a different view.