BHAGWAN JATHYA BHOIR Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) : - An issue of immense importance which would concern is large number of pending corruption prosecutions and appeals, as also curtail numerous others that would otherwise have been mechanically dumped on the Courts has arisen in this appeal, which is summarised as follows : whether it is not fundamental for a sanctioning authority, while according sanction under the provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act, to withhold sanction in petty cases where facts allege an isolated instance, and where the case would not justify the minimum sentence of one year R. I. and fine, and whether in such cases the public servant ought to be dealt with through disciplinary proceedings at the departmental level? Whether a sanction order issued without application of mind to these considerations would be bad in law?

(2.) THIS criminal appeal relates to an incident that had taken place as long back as on 9-2-1982. The appellant who, at the relevant time, was working as a clerk in the Rationing Office at Bhiwandi is alleged to have demanded and received illegal gratification of a trifling amount of Rs. 30/- from one Abdul Salam Gulam Mustafa Momin.

(3.) IT is alleged that the accused had been approached by the complainant in the course of his duties in the office with a request that the names of two of this brothers should be deleted from the existing ration card. The accused is alleged to have completed the formalities a few days prior to 9-2-1982 and he is supposed to have, at that time, asked the complainant to come on the 9th of February 1982 with an amount of Rs. 30/ -. The complainant approached the Anti-corruption Authorities and a trap was laid. It is alleged that on the 9th of February 1982 the complainant went to the office, met the accused and that the accused asked him as to whether he had brought the money or not. The complainant replied in the affirmative and sometime later, the accused is alleged to have asked the complainant who was accompanied by a Panch witness, to get him a 'paan', from the person sitting outside. The complainant obliged and it is his case that the accused had also told him while going for the paan to put the money in an envelope and to hand it over to him. According to the complainant, when he told the accused that an envelope was not available, the accused handed over a paper with instruction that the same be folded and the money placed inside. The complainant followed these instructions and the accused is alleged to have put the folded paper along with the amount of Rs. 30/- with the two notes protruding therefrom, into his left trouser pocket. On the complainant giving the requisite signal, the police party apprehended him and it is alleged that the paper along with the amount of Rs. 30/- was recovered from his left trouser pocket. It is also alleged that traces of anthracene powder were found on both his hands and further, that there were traces of anthracene powder also on his trousers. The accused was thereafter charge sheeted and put on trial. The learned Sessions Judge found the accused guilty and sentenced him to suffer. R. I. for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- in default to undergo R. I. for 3 months on each of the charges respectively. Viz. , under Section 161, I. P. C. as also under Section 5 (1) (d) read with Section 5 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. It is against this conviction and sentence that the present appeal has been filed.