LAXMAN BALIRAM MALI Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant, who at the relevant time was a record keeper under the District Inspector of Land Records, Bombay, was charged under a total of five different counts by the learned Special fudge, Greater Bombay, in respect of having received illegal gratification of Rs. 700/ -. The prosecution alleges that over and above the prescribed fee payable, the accused had demanded and received the balance amount as a bribe. The complainant. Prakash Khale (P.W.2), had alleged that he was interested in developing six plots belonging to the Kanjoor Co -operative Housing Society Ltd. and that these lands had to be demarcated, for which purpose an application had been made to the office of the District Inspector of Land Records. It was alleged that the accused indicated that an amount of Rs. 700/ - will have to be spent in respect of the first two plots and that the complainant paid Rs. 300/ - on 4 -1 -1983 against which a receipt was issued for only Rs. 100/ -. He is alleged to have asked for a further amount of Rs. 500/ - whereupon a complaint was made with the Anti -Corruption Bureau. A trap was laid on 11 -1 -1983 when the complainant is alleged to have passed on five notes of Rs. 100/ - each, which had been treated with anthracene powder, to the accused. He was immediately apprehended and the money was recovered from him and traces of the powder were found on his hand and certain parts of his clothing. The accused was arrested, put on trial and came to be convicted by the learned Judge of the trial Court which inflicted a sentence of rigorous imprisonment for one year on him. The present appeal is directed against that conviction and sentence.

(2.) SHRI Mundargi, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant -accused, has taken me through the entire evidence on record. With the assistance of Shri Patil, the learned A.P.P., and Shri Mundargi, I have scrutinized all the material that was before the trial Court. The first submission canvassed by Shri Mundargi is that the conviction is liable to be quashed on the ground that the sanction order in this case is defective. He relied on the evidence of Anant Shinde (P.W. 1), who is the office superintendent from the office of the District Inspector of Land Records. This witness has produced and proved the sanction order (Exhibit 6), which has been signed by Shri M. R. Lanje. Deputy Director of Land Records, Bombay Region, Bombay. The witness has not indicated to the Court as to whether Shri Lanje was available or not. In the absence of any such material, it will have to be presumed that Shri Lanje was available but was not examined as a witness, even though he was cited as one. Shri Mundargi has pointed out to me that he does not desire to be technical with regard to his approach in this appeal, but that it is a requirement of law and one of procedural propriety in serious cases of the present type that the authority who accorded the sanction must satisfy the Court with regard to the circumstances under which the sanction order was given. Anant Shinde (P.W. 1) has, undoubtedly, stated that in his presence the Deputy Director perused various documents and said to him that he was satisfied about the case against the accused and then passed the order sanctioning the prosecution. It is rather incredible to accept that the superior officer would have made such a statement to his subordinate. Regardless of this aspect of the matter however, since the lave on the point envisages that in the absence of a valid sanction order the prosecution itself is vitiated, the sanctity of establishing that the sanction order was valid in all respects rests heavily on the prosecution. Towards discharging that duty, in my mind, the prosecution was obliged to have summoned Shri Lanje so that he, could have satisfied the Court that there was due application of mind before sanctioning the present prosecution. Shri Mundargi is right when he states that this is not an attempt to play with technicalities because, as I shall subsequently illustrate, this was not merely an issue of ascertaining whether a prima facie case existed against the accused but, more importantly, of ascertaining as to whether at all there was any justification for sanctioning a prosecution against him. The absence of Shri Lanje assumes deep significance and, to my mind, the sanction order that has been mechanically produced by the office superintendent cannot be treated as a valid sanction order as far as the present proceeding is concerned. This ground itself would vitiate the prosecution.

(3.) SHRI Patil, the learned A.P.P., has stoutly defended the sanction order. Though he did concede that it would have been far better if Shri Lanje had been examined or if he was not available that the reasons therefor should have been placed before the Court, he, however, maintained that if the persons who had dealt with the file were to depose that his superior officer had specifically stated that he was satisfied that this was a fit case in which sanction should be granted that this was adequate. I am unable to accept this submission because apart from what has been pointed out by me above, it would sanction a decree of laxity in the conduct of serious cases of the present type which it is not in the public interest to permit. Undoubtedly, corruption must be dealt with ruthlessly. but in that enthusiasm one cannot short circuit the procedure prescribed by law, particularly when the consequences to the Government employee concerned are close to total annihilation because a suspension followed by a long period of trauma and a lengthy trial and possibly a long wait as has happened in the present case, till the appeal is disposed of, would almost completely destroy not only the Government servant but his family. Having regard to the gravity of the situation, there can be no compromise with regard to a strict adherence to procedure.