KRISHINCHAND KHUBCHAND JAGTIANI Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) - The short question which will dispose of this petition embracing larger and many questions is in relation to the applicability or otherwise of certain provisions of S. 83 of the Bombay Municipal Corporation Act viz. Bombay Act No. III of 1888 - hereinafter referred to as the "act".

(2.) FOR a proper pinpointing of the question that I am taking up for determination it will be necessary to set out the factual and legal parameters : the petitioner K. K. Jagtiani was working as an Assistant Engineer with the Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay (BMC ). It is alleged that on 10/02/1987 the petitioner along with one Sawarkar and certain other municpal employees took action against M/s Asian Oil Company of Sewree, Bombay-15. As an aftermath of this action, S. K. Toprani a partner of M/s Asian Oil Company contacted Inspector G. G. Aparaj Anti-Corruption Bureau on 11-2-1987. On the basis of information furnished by Toprani, an offence was registered ascribing to the petitioner and Sawarkar the commission of an offence and a trap organised. The next day i. e. on 12-2-1987 the trap was sprung and the petitioner and Sawarkar trapped. In the course of the investigation, the then Municipal Commissioner P. W. S. S. Tinaikar allegedly after going through the requisite papers accorded sanction to the prosecution of both the petitioner and Sawarkar. The sanction was accorded on 4-1-1988. On that day the petitioner was an Officer of the BMC being an Assistant Engineer in receipt of a basic minimum salary of less than Rs. 1,200/ -. In due course, a charge-sheet was lodged against petitioner and Sawarkar in the Court of Special Judge, Greater Bombay. The petitioner had given notice of his being desirous of raising certain preliminary contentions - one of them being the validity of the sanction accorded by the Municipal Commissioner. For that reason, Tinaikar and Aparaj were examined as preliminary witnesses by the prosecution. The different grounds taken by the petitioner to assail the sanction and the investigation having been negatived, he has come by way of a writ petition to this Court. It is not necessary to go into the many points raised in the petition questioning the sanction and the investigation. In fact the validity of the investigation need not be gone into at all for the present. Even in respect of the challenge thrown to the validity of the sanction I will restrict the discussion to the vires of the sanction vis-_is the requirements of S. 83 of the Act.

(3.) HAVING done with the factual position I shall now set out the relevant provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 and the Act i. e. the BMC Act, S. 6 (1) (c) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 to the extent relevant reads as follows :-