VIJAYKUMAR Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is filed challenging the Judgment and order of conviction dated 09/12/2003 passed by the learned Special Judge, Chandrapur in Special Case no. 3 of 1992 whereby the appellant/accused was convicted under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and was sentenced to suffer R.I. for a term of one year and to pay a fine in the sum of Rs. 1000/-. The appellant/accused was also convicted under Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and was sentenced to suffer R.I. for one year and to pay a fine in the sum of Rs. 1000/- or in default to suffer R. I. for 15 days.

(2.) Briefly stated the facts appeared as under

(3.) Learned Advocate for the Appellant submitted that the appellant was wrongly held guilty because the sanction granted in this case was granted by the Standing Committee which was not legal and proper, since it was not granted by the Chief Officer. It is further contended that the Sanction order was granted without application of mind. He submitted that there is admission by Ram Rode (PW-7) that he, as a Chief Officer, had received proposal for to accord Sanction to launch the prosecution against the accused Dahilwalkar from the ACB s Office. He had put up that proposal before the Standing Committee in the meeting held on 18/10/1991. Shri Gyanchand Trivedi was Chairman of the Standing Committee. The witness who came to depose about the Sanction Order (Ex.46) did not remember whether the papers were sent along with the proposal for according Sanction. Shri Rode ( PW-7) admitted that Mayor President is the Chairman of the Standing Committee and every Resolution passed by the Standing Committee is signed by the Chairman of the Standing Committee. It is further admitted that the proceedings in the meeting dated 18/10/1991 was not signed by the Chairman of the Standing Committee, nor it was in his handwriting. It did not bear the seal of stamp of the Nagar Parishad. The proceeding book is also questioned on the ground that the same contained only 70 pages and the pages were marked only up to 68; the proceedings was in pages 1 to 21 and other pages are blank indicating that no other proceeding took place. Admittedly, Ram Rode (PW-7) did not take decision to launch the prosecution against the accused. In Para 4, it is admitted that Ram Rode (PW-7) opened the envelope containing draft Sanction Order sent by the ACB s Office. The meeting of the Standing Committee began at 5 p.m. and there were 29 subjects, while subject of Sanction was at the serial No 28. PW-7 do not remember as to who was the Chief Officer at that time or who was the President of the Municipal Council on whom such powers are delegated .