ARUN PRAHLAD KALE Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant assails his conviction under section 5 (1) (d) read with section 5 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act as also under section 161 of the Indian Penal Code imposed on him by the learned Special Judge, Pune, in Special Case No. 6 of 1981. The appellant has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 300/-, in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two months on the first count, and to suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 200/- in default, to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one month on the second count.

(2.) IT is alleged that the appellant-accused, who was at the relevant time a Sub-Engineer attached to the Maharashtra State Electricity Board and who was incharge of sanctioning load, demanded illegal gratification in the sum of Rs. 50/- from Arvind Narayan Nagavekar for purposes of sanctioning the load in question. It appears that the amount was settled at Rs. 40/- and that on a complaint lodged with the Anti-Corruption Bureau, a trap was laid and that on the morning of 28-10-1980 the complainant with the currency notes on which phenolphthalein powder had been smeared visited the office of the accused along with a Pancha by the name of Mohan Deokule (P. W. 2 ). The accused is alleged to have asked whether he had brought what he had been asked for and he is alleged to have thereafter instructed the complainant to put the notes into a diary of his which the complainant did. The raiding party thereafter recovered the currency notes from the diary in question, and it is common ground that there was no trace of any powder on the accused. The accused was thereafter charge-sheeted on a corruption charge and came to be convicted by the learned Special Judge. It is against this conviction that the present appeal has been filed.

(3.) MR. Chitnis, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant, has at the very outset attacked the validity of the trial on a point of law. He has contended that the sanction order in the present case, which is Exhibit 30 at page 81, is an order whereby the Deputy Chief Engineer J. C. Mane has granted sanction for the prosecution. Mr. Chitnis contends that this particular document has been proved through Ravati Pathak (P. W. 3), the Executive Engineer, and that this procedure, according to him, is irregular in law in so far as he states that the document could have been proved only by the authority who had granted the sanction. Within the framework of law, Mr. Chitnis is not justified in making the submission because it is open to the prosecution tender a document in evidence and to prove it through some person who may be familiar with the signature of the authority granting the sanction. The admissibility of the document cannot, therefore, be attacked, but the subsequent submission advanced by Mr. Chitnis which flows from the earlier one, namely, that by following such a procedure, the accused has been prejudiced in so far as he has been precluded from questioning the validity or otherwise of the sanction will have to be upheld. It is well-settled law that the accused in a criminal trial is entitled to question not only the correctness but also the validity of the sanction order. Mr. Chitnis submits that if the prosecution has not made available the authority which granted the sanction that his client was seriously prejudiced because he would have been able to establish that this was not a fit case in which sanction for presecution should have been accorded. To this extent, the grievance made is justified.