RAJENDRA Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Present petition has been filed invoking the constitutional powers of this Court under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India to challenge order dated 17-09-2014, passed by respondent No.1 by which the respondent No.1 has accorded sanction for prosecution of the accused under Section 19 (1) (b) of the Prevention of Corruption Act , 1988. The petitioner has been added as an accused in Crime No.3002 of 2010, registered with Muktai Nagar, Police Station, Jalgaon, for the offence punishable under Section 7 , 12 , 13 (1) (d) read with 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act , 1988.

(2.) Heard learned Senior Counsel Mr. P. V. Mandlik instructed by Advocate Mr. A. S. Gandhi and Mr. P. P. Mandlik, and learned Additional Public Prosecutor Mr. S. W. Munde for respondent. It will not be out of place to mention here that, the name of respondent No.2 has been deleted vide order passed by this Court on 24-03- 2015, therefore there is only one respondent in this case.

(3.) It has been vehemently submitted by learned Senior Counsel Mr. Mandlik that, the petitioner is a Range Forest Officer who was involved in a false case. A complaint was filed by one Tukaram Govind Sonawane, resident of Kakoda Tq. Muktai Nagar Dist. Jalgaon on 16-01-2010 with Anti Corruption Bureau, Dhule. The trap was arranged and employee by name Ashok Dayaram Tayade, who is a Class-IV employee, was caught while accepting amount of Rs.10,000/- from the complainant. The present petitioner came to be falsely involved. The petitioner had never demanded any amount from the complainant, on the contrary the petitioner had filed case against complainant for illegal cutting and transportation of forest produce. Petitioner was not even present when the raid was conducted. After the entire procedure was over, Anti corruption Bureau, Jalgaon had forwarded a proposal on 22-02-2010 to the Revenue and Forest Department of the Government of Maharashtra for grant of necessary sanction to prosecute petitioner. After perusing those documents which were sent and also on the basis of their own documents, the Revenue and Forest Department had refused to accord sanction to prosecute petitioner vide its order dated 15-03-2013. It was specifically mentioned that the complaint has been filed with malafide intention and an honest government officer is being tried to be falsely implicated. However, thereafter also the Anti Corruption Bureau Department through its Director General was bent upon to get the sanction, made correspondence to the Secretary, Revenue and Forest Department. In fact, when once the Government had exercised its power under Section 19 (1) (b) of the Prevention of Corruption Act , and passed the order of refusal to accord sanction, there was no question of reconsideration of the said decision. Interestingly when the initial order was passed about refusal to accord sanction, it was by Pravinsingh Pardeshi, the then Principal Secretary to the Government of Maharashtra, however after the correspondence between the Forest Department and the Anti Corruption Department, especially the letter by Director General, Anti Corruption Bureau, Government of Maharashtra, Mumbai on 04-02-2014 and by Additional Director General, Anti Corruption Bureau, Government of Maharashtra, Mumbai dated 30- 04 -2014, the sanction order has been issued on 17-09-2014. This order dated 17-09-2014 is also signed by same then Principal Secretary to the Government of Maharashtra who had refused to grant the sanction on 15-03-2013. There is absolutely no provision for review of the order passed under Section 19 of the Prevention of Anti Corruption Act. The impugned order dated 17-09-2014 does not say as to what new material was produced before the sanctioning authority on the basis of which he had come to the conclusion that, there is a necessity to review the earlier order. In fact, the order dated 17-09-2014 is totally silent on the point of order of refusal to accord sanction passed earlier.